HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2402-2597CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, June 10, 2024
Council Chambers & Hybrid
4:00 PM
Agenda Item
13.Selection of Rail Grade Separation Alternatives and Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Near the
Churchill Avenue Crossing for the Advancement of the Alternatives into the Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase; CEQA status – statutorily exempt
under CEQA section 15262 (feasibility and planning study).
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Transportation
Meeting Date: June 10, 2024
Report #:2402-2597
TITLE
Selection of Rail Grade Separation Alternatives and Bicycle-Pedestrian Crossing Near the Churchill
Avenue Crossing for the Advancement of the Alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation phase; CEQA status – statutorily exempt under CEQA section 15262
(feasibility and planning study).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council discuss and review the grade separation alternatives
considering Rail Committee recommendations and other work completed to date for the
selection of preferred alternative(s) and select which alternative(s) to advance into the Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase.
Staff is seeking the Council action on the following key decisions:
1. The Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at Kellogg Avenue versus Seale Avenue for
the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue Crossing. The Rail Committee
recommended the Seale Avenue as preferred alternative unanimously.
2.The selection of Preferred Alternative(s) at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for
advancing grade separation alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation Phase. The Rail Committee voted, with two in favor and
one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for
advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The grade separation projects at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road involves
construction impacting railroad facilities with active commuter and freight lines. This item seeks
the Council direction on the selection of alternatives as the project moves forward into the
preliminary engineering and environmental phase.
Staff is seeking the Council action on the following key decisions:
1. The Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at Kellogg Avenue versus Seale Avenue for
the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue Crossing. The Rail Committee
recommended the Seale Avenue as preferred alternative unanimously.
2.The selection of Preferred Alternative(s) at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road for
advancing grade separation alternatives into the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Documentation Phase. The Rail Committee voted, with two in favor and
one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for
advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review.
Since the selection of the Partial Underpass as the preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue
and the narrowing of the alternatives to Hybrid, Trench, and Underpass for Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road crossings by the City Council in 2021, the City has conducted various studies
and refinements to underpass alternatives. In addition, the Council-adopted Evaluation Criteria
was updated following Rail Committee recommendation in June 2023.
Caltrain engagement has also increased significantly through the alternatives analysis. In June
2022, the City requested evaluation of four tracking segment needs and concerns with the
design criteria. As a result, Caltrain embarked upon the Caltrain Corridor Strategy Project to
review the concerns of various local agencies with projects along the corridor including an
analysis of 4 tracking needs. In June 2023, a service agreement was executed for Caltrain review
of the project including impacts on the Caltrain Right of Way (ROW), and for technical input on
conceptual plans. The City received comments from Caltrain in November 2023 and these
comments, affecting various elements, discussed by the Rail Committee in January 2024.
Subsequently, City and Caltrain staff convened to understand the comments concerning Caltrain
policies, updated standards, constructability, and the four tracking needs impacting the
conceptual design for various alternatives. Impacts requiring high-level material changes to these
concepts were discussed by the Rail Committee on March 19 and April 16, 2024. At this meeting
the Rail Committee recommended the Seale Avenue as preferred alternative unanimously and
voted, with two in favor and one opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid
Alternative at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council
for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review. In addition, a study session with the
City Council was held on April 29, 2024. Following the study session, the Rail Committee held
another meeting on May 23, 2024, to provide the community with an additional opportunity
for feedback. The discussion at this meeting reinforced the previous recommendation to the
Council.
Staff is therefore seeking Council action on the preferred bicycle and pedestrian crossing
location for Churchill Underpass Alternative and the selection of the preferred alternative for
grade separations at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing to advance the crossings into
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental documentation phase.
Additionally, staff in the separate item will seek Council approval at a future date for a funding
agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration securing the grant funding contributions
of $6.0 Million towards completing the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
Documentation for the three crossings at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston
Road.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
After receiving the final report from the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on March
23, 2021 (Staff Report 117971), Staff presented a detailed review of Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road crossing alternatives on August 23, 2021 (Staff Report 134352) and presented
details on Churchill Avenue crossing alternatives for grade separation on November 1 & 29,
2021 (Staff Report 135433) & (Staff Report 137874).
City Council Selection of Alternatives
At these meetings in November 2021, the Council eliminated the Viaduct Alternative and
selected the Partial Underpass Alternative as a preferred alternative for Churchill Avenue with
the Closure Alternative as backup.
For Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossing, the Council in August 2021 narrowed the
alternatives in consideration to three alternatives, namely Hybrid, Trench, and Underpass. The
City Council also directed staff to perform additional studies. These studies included work to
refine Underpass alternatives with input from PAUSD, PABAC, and Stanford to address current
shortcomings and to conduct additional outreach to these stakeholders. On May 23, 2022 (Staff
Report 143415) the City Council authorized an amendment with the consultant to perform these
additional tasks.
Refinements to Underpass Alternatives
Following the City Council and Rail Committee direction, City Staff and the consultant reached
out to the Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee (PABAC), Palo Alto Unified School District
(PAUSD), Stanford, City School Transportation Safety Committee (CSTSC), and members from
the community who were involved in developing the conceptual design of these partial
underpass alternatives for their feedback and comments for refinement to the conceptual
plans. Staff compiled all the comments received from these stakeholders and developed a
master list of all comments. These comments were then categorized into four elements: Bicycle
and Pedestrian, Roadway, Structures, and Rail. The following list of comments was reviewed
and addressed in the refinements.
•Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
o Width and Pathway configurations
o Grade/slope
o Maneuvering and additional crossings
1 City Council, March 23, 2021; Item 1, Study Session, SR# 11797
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81424
2 City Council, August 23, 2021; Item 6, Action Items, SR# 13435
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81581
3 City Council, November 1, 2021; Item 15, Action Item, SR# 13543
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81602
4 City Council, November 29, 2021; Item 11, Action Items, SR # 13787
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81655
5 City Council, May 23, 2022, Consent Items, SR# 14341
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=81903
o Design speed, design bicycle, turning radius and sight distance
o Construction impacts
o Bicycle and Pedestrian pathway on each side (Meadow and Charleston
Underpass alternative)
o Kellogg Avenue vs Seale Avenue and Bike Lane configurations on the pathway
for Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass alternative
•Roadways:
o Shoulder and lane widths
o Vehicular lane reductions
o Intersection, turning radius, school bus turning radius
o Roadway Grade/Slope
o Signage
o Loss of landscaping strip on Alma Street
o Roundabout for Charleston Underpass Alternative only
o Bike boulevard continuity at intersections
•Structures
o Bridge Depth thickness
o Vertical clearance
o Aesthetics
•Rail
o Raise the rail
The various elements related to these facilities were discussed during Rail Committee study
sessions on October 19, 2022 (Staff Report 148136) and November 18, 2022 (Staff Report 149047).
Based on the study session review and feedback, the Conceptual Plans of the Partial Underpass at
Churchill Avenue and Underpass Alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road were refined
and approved by the Rail Committee on May 23, 2023 (Staff Report 2302- 09738). Following major
elements were revised to prepare the refined plans.
•Added Buffer Zones between vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian facilities
•Reduced Vehicular lane widths
•Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities
•Improved maneuverability and turning radii
•Reduced bridge span width at Churchill Avenue
Re-evaluation of Viaduct Alternative in-lieu of Trench alternative at Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road crossing for review by Caltrain
During the Rail Committee study sessions reviewing the refinements of underpass alternatives in
6 Rail Committee, October 19, 2022; Item 2, Study Session, SR # 14813
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9206
7 Rail Committee, November 18, 2022; Item 2, Study Session, SR # 14904
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9207
8 Rail Committee, May 23, 2023; Item 2, Action Items, SR # 2302-0973
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9216
October and November of 2022, the members of the community, PABAC, and PAUSD expressed
concerns about bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and requested to reconsider Viaduct
Alternative for Rail Committee’s review, evaluation, and recommendation to Council. In
addition, during the same time; Caltrain staff provided information regarding the four tracking
needs in Palo Alto. Therefore, the Rail Committee paused further analysis of the trench
alternative, mainly due to its high cost and feasibility challenges concerning accommodating and
addressing the four tracking needs of Caltrain.
Furthermore, the Service Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) for the Connecting Palo Alto Grade Separation Projects at these
crossings was in the development process during this time. The draft service agreement was
reviewed by the Rail Committee at its April 26, 2023, meeting (Staff Report 2303-11999). The
Service Agreement was intended to provide early coordination, technical review, input, and
expertise to inform the capital project development process for the selection of Preferred
Alternative(s). Therefore, the Rail Committee considered this an opportunity to further review
the Viaduct Alternative instead of the Trench Alternative for Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road crossing at the June 20, 2023, Rail Committee meeting (Staff Report 2305-154610) to
accommodate community concerns.
Based on Caltrain’s review of the proposed viaduct alignment to keep the structure away from
residential properties west of the railroad track while keeping existing tracks as shoefly track,
addressing technical comments, and the four tracking needs; this alternative would cause
significant encroachment on Alma Street potentially reducing the street into one lane in each
direction. The Rail Committee meetings in March and April 2024 discussed a possible iteration to
the viaduct alternative with the proposed viaduct alignment to shift westward towards the
residential properties and to construct the shoefly tracks on the east side of the tracks. This
alternative was not evaluated by Caltrain as the intent was to remain consistent with the
previously envisioned concept that was developed through community input by the City. In
addition, there were time and scope constraints in the Caltrain Service Agreement.
Following an in-depth review and discussion, the Committee voted, with two in favor and one
opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive
and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the
Preliminary Engineering review. Therefore, the Viaduct alternative was eliminated from further
consideration by the Rail Committee.
City Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria & Additional Studies
The Rail Committee on March 29, 2023 (Staff Report 2302-101011), and April 26, 2023 (Staff Report
9 Rail Committee, April 26, 2023, Item 2, Action Items, Staff Report 2305-1546
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9213
10 Rail Committee, June 20, 2023, Item 1, Action Items, Staff Report 2305-1546
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9225
11 Rail Committee, March 29, 2023; Item 1, Action Items, SR # 2303-1010
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9212
2304-126912), reviewed the Council Adopted Evaluation criteria, which led to a recommendation
from the Rail Committee the additional measures to be included in the Council Adopted Evaluation
Criteria. The revised evaluation criteria were unanimously approved by the Rail Committee and
recommended to the City Council for approval. The City Council approved the updated evaluation
criteria at its June 12, 2023, meeting (Staff Report # 2305-142613).
The additional measures in the evaluation criteria include reviewing impacts such as
connectivity, corridor travel times, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, sustainability, sea-level
rise, and visual and privacy considerations. These additional elements for the alternatives in
consideration were further evaluated. The Rail Committee reviewed the update to the Summary
of Evaluation of Council Adopted Criteria at its February 20, 2024, meeting (Staff Report # 2401-
250314).
The City’s engineering consultant (AECOM) also conducted the subsurface exploration and
performed data collection for the project. A study report was prepared by the Consultant which
included findings addressing subsurface conditions and the feasibility of alternative
construction methods with respect to soil conditions and recommendations for additional
studies in future phases. The study was presented to the Rail Committee on August 23, 2023,
Rail Committee Meeting (Staff Report 2307-174715)
In addition, at the Rail Committee’s request the Noise and Vibration Comparative Analysis
Report prepared by AECOM Engineers in July 2020 for the evaluation of the Grade Separation
Alternatives was reviewed to discuss the technical insights in a study session on September 19,
2023 (Staff Report 2308-194316)
Caltrain Review (Four Tracking and Technical Review of Alternatives)
The Caltrain 2040 Business plan’s inclusion of a possible passing track segment in either Palo
Alto or Mountain View presented challenges for grade separation planning in Palo Alto. At each
of these crossings, Caltrain required that grade separation designs not preclude four- tracking.
These requirements indicated a significant impediment to the timely and cost- effective project
development. Caltrain staff had previously indicated that Caltrain was taking the most
conservative approach in considering the potential for a four-track segment between the San
Francisquito Creek Bridge in Palo Alto and just through the Mountain View Station. Therefore,
in June 2022, City staff sent formal requests to consider narrowing the extent of the four-track
12 Rail Committee, April 26, 2023; Item 1, Action Items, SR 2304-1269
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9213
13 City Council, June 12, 2023; Item 6, Consent Items, SR# 2305-1426
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82425
14 Rail Committee, February 20, 2024; Item 1, Action Items, SR 2401-2503
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9251
15 Rail Committee, August 23, 2023; Item 2, Action Items, SR# 2307-1747
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9227
16 Rail Committee, September 19, 2023; Item 2, Study Session, SR# 2308-1943
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9232
segment and review technical issues and concerns that surfaced related to their design criteria.
17). Caltrain staff reviewed various alternatives including four
tracking segments at the following three locations:
•Palo Alto Avenue Station (Four tracking between Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill
Avenue)
•California Avenue Station (Four tracking between Churchill Avenue and Meadow
Drive)
•San Antonio Station (Four tracking between Rengstroff to Charleston Road)
Exhibit A: California Avenue Four Tracking Segment
17 Rail Committee, November 21, 2023; Item 1, Study Session, Presentation
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=13219
On November 8, 2023, Caltrain staff conducted their first technical review and provided
comments to City Staff. Staff presented the major elements affecting various alternatives and
identified the initial impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards at
the January 23, 2024 (Staff Report 2311-230318) Rail Committee meeting. At this meeting, the
Rail Committee directed staff to coordinate with Caltrain staff and to determine the material
changes to the alternatives’ concepts to address updated standards guiding the substantiate
changes in the alternative’s concepts. These comments are related to the following major
elements.
a.Vertical Alignment
•Roadway vertical clearance
•Bridge structure depth
•Railroad grade and profile
•Pedestrian and Bicycle path clearance
b.Horizontal Alignment
•Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
•Pedestrian facilities encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
•Railroad encroachment into Caltrain right-of-way
•Width of Bridges
•Retaining wall offsets/clearance from structure and roadways
•Maintenance and access requirements along railroad tracks
•Clearance for MSE Wall construction between shoofly and new walls
and maximize the right-of-way use
c.Four (4) tracking segments
•Four (4) tracking segments and roadway encroachment into Caltrain
right-of-way
•Four track alignment
d.Roadway Design
•Road profile/sag curve/grades
•Acceleration/deceleration lane, lane drops and weaving
•Roundabout design
•Curved bridges
e.Miscellaneous/Other
•Construction technology
•Culverts
Subsequently, City and Caltrain staff met to understand how addressing Caltrain comments and
adhering to Caltrain Standards will impact the conceptual design alternatives and understand
the high-level material changes that may be required to the concepts. A follow- up study session
18 Rail committee, January 23, 2024; Item 1, Action Items, SR# 2311-2303
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9239
with the Rail Committee was conducted on March 19, 2024 (Staff Report 2402-267519)
presented key findings on the impacts to various alternatives and discussed the material
changes required for various alternatives.
The Rail Committee discussion regarding Caltrain's comments continued to the April 16, 2024
meeting. City and Caltrain Staff provided the details of major elements affecting various
alternatives identifying impacts on alternatives for adherence to updated Caltrain Standards.
Following an in-depth review and discussion, the Committee voted, with two in favor and one
opposed, to recommend the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at Meadow Drive
and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City Council for advancement into the
Preliminary Engineering review.
Additionally, the Rail Committee unanimously reconfirmed the preference for the Partial
Underpass for the Churchill Avenue crossing. The Committee also recommended to consider
the following elements for Underpass Alternatives at all crossings during the Preliminary
Engineering phase.
•Seek ways to reduce property impacts
•Optimize bike/pedestrian crossings
•Where feasible, improve connections to bike infrastructure beyond the study area to
improve the network
o Improve connection to Park Blvd
o Explore modifications/refinements to the Bike Blvd, along Park Blvd to
improve overall bike network
o Further refine the traffic circle on Charleston Road to reduce the property
impacts
o Refine construction impacts to better understand possible mutations needed
during the lengthy construction process.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing - Kellogg Avenue vs. Seale Ave
At the November 29, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to ensure that the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan included an evaluation of the bicycle and pedestrian
crossing for the Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass at the locations of Kellogg Avenue and Seale
Avenue. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan completed the evaluation of this and prepared a
technical memorandum summarizing their assessment (Attachment J: Technical Memorandum
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment)
The assessment included a review of the prior analysis and plans, proximity to alternative
routes, landing locations, network connectivity, and community input. Based on this analysis, it
is recommended that bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue would fill a longer gap
between alternative locations and would increase connectivity. In addition, due to right-of- way
constraints on the west side of the railroad tracks at the Kellogg Avenue location, there is
potential for additional impact on the Palo Alto Unified School District property. The Kellogg
19 Rail Committee, March 19, 2024; Item 1, Action Items, SR 2402-2675
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=9255
location also requires additional turns on the west side of the tracks to connect to the
Embarcadero Bike path which is currently within the easement on the Caltrain property.
Exhibit B: Kellogg Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing
Exhibit C: Seale Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing
Finalizing the location of a Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing presents complexities when
considered with the planned partial underpass at Churchill including but not limited to land
use and right of way. Staff is considering additional outreach to incorporate input from
stakeholders including but not limited to Palo Alto Unified School District, residents around
the crossings, and bike and pedestrian users including students at key locations such as Palo
Alto High School and affected neighborhood streets. In addition, this will allow staff to review
the crossing layout and the integration of a potential underpass with parkland uses at Peers
Park before the Rail Committee makes its final recommendation to the City Council.
Staff presented a review of the merits of Kellogg vs Seale to the Rail Committee on April 16,
2024 (Staff Report 2403-280220) The Rail Committee reviewed and unanimously selected Seale
Avenue as the preferred bicycle and pedestrian crossing location. Staff sent the mailers to
the property owners adjacent to the project to conduct additional outreach to stakeholders
and inform the community about the bicycle and pedestrian crossing location. The mailer
provided information to attend the City Council Study Session on April 29 and future Rail
Committee meeting on May 23 and a planned Council Meeting on June 10. In addition, a Rail
Blog Series was added to provide the information for the larger community outreach
20 Rail Committee, April 16, 2024; Item 2, Action items, SR# 2403-2802
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=53069
providing information about the upcoming meetings and discussions leading to action by the
City Council.
The City Council Study session on April 29, 2024 (Staff Report 2402-259321) provided review of
the additional studies, refinements, and updates that were performed to date on the grade
separation projects and the rail committee actions. Following the study session, the Rail
Committee held another meeting on May 23, 2024, to provide the community with an
additional opportunity for feedback. The discussion at this meeting reinforced the previous
recommendation to the Council.
Next Steps: Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase
The project's next phase involves advancing into the Preliminary Engineering and
Environmental Phase. In October 2022, the Office of Transportation Staff submitted an
application requesting a $6.0 million Federal Grant from the Rail Crossing Elimination
Program to contribute towards preliminary engineering and environmental documentation
preparation. The remaining $14.0 million is anticipated from the Santa Clara County Measure
B Grade Separation Fund. This phase is scheduled to be completed within three years, ending
in June 2027. City staff are actively working on executing the agreement to secure this $6.0
million grant funding from the Federal Railroad Administration.
The grant application was based on the selected partial underpass alternative at Churchill
Avenue. Additionally, the application assumed the selection of the preferred alternative prior
to preliminary engineering for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings. In
discussions with FRA Staff, the City and Caltrain staff proposed that the FRA allows the City
to move forward with two alternatives into the earlier preliminary engineering activities. This
first step in the earlier Preliminary Engineering and Environmental documentation phase will
allow the project to focus on refining conceptual plans to a 15% level of design. The design
will provide greater detail and will take the opportunity to refine the plans to minimize
property impacts and optimize improvements while ensuring compliance with regulatory
requirements. These updated plans at the 15% design level will provide additional
information for the City to allow the selection of the preferred alternative at the Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road crossings. Therefore, seeking additional time to then advance the
selected preferred alternative into the second step for developing 35% plans and
commencing necessary environmental studies required environmental approvals under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA).
21 City Council, April 29, 2024, Item 2, Study Sessions, SR# 2402-2593
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/Weblink/DocView.aspx?id=82802
The Funding Agreement with FRA was also scheduled for review by Rail Committee at its May
23, 2024 meeting( Staff Report 2404-202422). The Rail Committee unanimously recommended
the approval of funding agreement with FRA. FRA is performing the final review of the draft
agreement and staff plans to bring this funding agreement for the City Council approval at its
June 17 meeting.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
22 Rail Committee, May 23, 2024; Action item 1, SR# 2402-2024
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=72104&repo=r-704298fc
updates on City projects, including Rail Grade Separation projects, in the Transportation Connect
Newsletter and, on the project’s, ConnectingPaloAlto.com website. As part of the next steps, staff
sent out mailers to the residents affected by and are located adjacent to the project area,
informing them about the Rail Committee meeting of May 23, 2024 and this June 10, 2024 City
Council meeting. In addition, as part of the rail blog series, a blog was issued providing
information about the project and upcoming reviews by the Rail Committee and the City Council
meeting providing greater details about the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
Plan & Profile
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave Aerial View (Plan)
Alma St (Profile)
Detail A
See Detail A
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
Alma St Profile
Partial Underpass at Churchill
11'
10'
11'
5'
13'
10'
100 ft500 ft
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
M
elville Ave
Kellog
g
Ave
Chu
rchill Ave
Coleridg
e Ave
Alma St
Paly Rd
Mariposa Ave
Castilleja Ave
Alma St
0.0%
0.0%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
Roadway
60
50
40
30
20
60
50
40
30
20
202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00 208+00 209+00 210+00 211+00 212+00
Total Length = 1,129 ft
Ave
Kellogg
Ave
Churchill
Ave
Coleridge
-8%+8%
-0.3%
380' VC
104' VC 112' VC
380' VC
213+00
R=5'R=5'
32'
9'
9'
12'
Tunnel below
Profile & Typical Sections
Churchill Underpass
Churchill Ave (Profile)
Alma St (North of Churchill Ave)
Typical Section
Churchill Ave Underpass
Typical Section
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Churchill Ave
Seale Ave
Kellogg Ave or
Typical Section
a maximum span length of 75-80 ft)
(Based on a 2-span structure with
Top of Rail to Soffit = 7'-6"Note:
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Original Ground = Existing Top of Rail
CL
Churchill Ave
22' - 4" *
11'11'11'
centerline of Churchill Ave
*Dimension shown at
8'
WB Lane
Turn Lane
EB Left
Turn Lane
EB RightShld Shld
MT-2
Exist
8'Var 8' to 22'
11'
NB Alma St
NB LaneSB LaneSB Lane
11'
13'
NB Lane NB Lane
10'
10'5'
Shld
R/W
Caltrain
4'
PL
Prop
PL
Exist
Sidewalk
5'
Landscape
Track
MT-2
Track
MT-1
14' +/-
12'
9'
R/W
Caltrain
Ped/Bike Path
Southbound
Ped/Bike Path
2-Way
To Be Reconstructed
Existing Bleachers
9'
Ped/Bike Path
Northbound
2'-4"
Shld
2'
12'
LANE
RAMP
Ped/Bike
FL
FL
16'
Sidewalk
16'
LANE Sidewalk
PL PL
4'±4'±2'-6"2'-6"
60'
13'15'12'-6"12'
54'-6"
MT1 MT2(Beyond)
OCS Pole
Abutment WallEdge of Abutment = Face of Retaining Wall
1' (Typ)
See Note
Note:
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Churchill Ave
MT2
Profile Grade
Roadway
Total length = 440 ft
Castilleja Ave
Paly Rd/
Alma St
NB
60
50
40
30
20
99+00 100+00
60
50
40
30
20
105+00104+00101+00 102+00 103+00
0%
Ground
Original MT1
Ped/Bike Bridge
St
Alma
RR Bridge
16' - 6"
16' - 6"
+2%
204' VC
190' VC
-12%
Option 1
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
CL
Alma St
Mariposa Ave
Churchill Ave
Section A-A Section B-B
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
Alma St
A A
B
B
Option 2
Plan & Cross Sections
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Undercrossing at Churchill Avenue
Churchill Avenue (Plan)
Alm
a St
M
ariposa Ave
Churchill Ave
Section B-BSection A-A
A
CL
Alma St
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND
Stairway
Undercrossing Structure
Sidewalk Modifications
Roadway Modifications
Landscaping
Ramp
Right-of-Way
Fence
A
B
B
LOMA VERDE AVE
EL VERANO
AVE
CHARLESTO
N RD
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST ADOBE CREEK
M
EADOW
DR
LIDERO DR
TENNNESEE LN
FERNE AVE
LUNDY LANE
G
REENM
EADO
W
W
AY
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
0
20
40
60
0
20
40
60
80
14.0'
14.0'
BARRO
N CREEK
MEADOW DR CHARLESTON RD
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Hybrid
Curtner Ave
Ventura Ave
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 08, 2018
6.0'
6.0'
Profile
Hybrid Track
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:
Limits Of Roadway
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00
ELEV
A
TIO
N
(ft)
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Lowering
Robles Park
Outlet
Grocery
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
0.3%
1.0%
1.0%
TEMPORARY TRACKSCALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
ELEV. 50.2
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 53.8
TOP OF RAIL
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
(TYP)
EMBANKMENT
RETAINED
HYBRID PROFILE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
UNDERPASS
BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION
ENDNEW TRACKS
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING
LIMITS OF ROADWAY
LOWERING PALO ALTO
CITY LIMIT
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Meadow Dr Aerial View (Plan)
Meadow Dr (Profile)
Alma St (Profile)
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
To San Francisco
To San Jose
Alma St
Park BlvdPark Blvd
E M
eadow Dr
Palo Alto
60
50
40
30
20
12+00 13+00
50
40
30
20
10
12+00 13+00
0.0%
-3.0%3.0%
0.0%
21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+0015+0014+00
14+00
0.0%
-5.0%
1.6%
17+0016+0015+00 18+00 19+00
0.0%
20+00 21+00
22+00 23+00
10
20
30
40
50
22+00
20
30
40
50
60
W
M
eadow Dr
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
Meadow Dr
Total length = 469 ft
M
in Vert Clr
16'-6"
Total length = 400 ft
Alma St
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for W Meadow Dr
NOTE:
Original Ground
Original Ground
Roadway Profile Grade
Railroad Bridge Structure
50' VC
90' VC
50' VC
60' VC 60' VC
-0.3%
75' VC 90' VC
Plan & Profile
Meadow / Charleston Hybrid
Charleston Rd Aerial View (Plan)
Charleston Rd (Profile)Alma St (Profile)
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
To San Jose
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
W
Charleston Rd
E Charleston Rd
Ely PlLindero Dr
To San Francisco
Palo Alto
60
50
40
30
20
14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00
20
30
40
50
60 60
50
40
30
20
13+00 14+00 15+00 21+0020+0019+0018+0017+0016+00 22+00
20
30
40
50
60
0.0%
-5.0%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
-3.0%3.0%
0.0%
PRELIMINARY
100 ft50
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
0 ft
LEGEND:
Retaining Wall
Limits of Roadway Modifications
Direction of Traffic
Permanent Track Alignment
Caltrain Right-of-Way
Driveway Modification
Bridge Structure
Sidewalk Modification
Total length = 403 ft
Alma St
Charleston Rd
Design Speed = 35 MPH for Alma St
Design Speed = 25 MPH for Charleston Rd
NOTE:
Ground
Original
Railroad Bridge Structure
90' VCRoadway Profile Grade
50' VC
50' VC
M
in Vert Clr
16'-6"
Total length = 469 ft
Original Ground
60' VC 60' VC
-0.3%
75' VC 90' VC
LOMA VERDE AVE
EL
VERAN
O
AV
E
CHARLESTO
N
RD
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
M
EAD
OW
DR
LIDERO DR
TE
NN
N
ESEE
LN
FERNE AVE
LUNDY LANE
G
REE
NM
EAD
O
W
W
AY
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
REVERSE CONSTRUCTION ENVELOPE
0
20
40
60
-20
80
MEADOW DR
30
'30
'
CHARLESTON RD
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
Curtner Ave
Ventura Ave
BARRO
N
CR
EE
K
AD
O
BE CREE
K
Meadow Drive & Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Trench
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
120+00115+00 175+00150+00 155+00 160+00 170+00165+00145+00125+00 140+00135+00130+00
-20
0
20
60
40
80
Landmark
Creek
Influence Area
Ground Anchor
Groundwater
Bridge
LEGEND:
EL
E
V
A
TIO
N
(f
t)
Profile
Trench Track
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
Track (Shoofly)
Temporary
Track
New Permanent
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park
Barron Creek
Adobe Creek
2.0%
0.3%
INFLUENCE AREA
GROUND ANCHOR
STATIONPUMP
EMERGENCY ACCESS STAIRS
TEMPORARY TRACK
LIFT STATION
LIFT STATION GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION
(2%)
TRENCH PROFILE
ELEV. 9.9
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV. 6.1
TOP OF RAIL
NEW PERMANENT TRACK
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION
END
MEADOW DR
STAIRS AT
EMERGENCY ACCESS
POTENTIAL
LIFT
STATION
LOCATION
POTENTIAL
LIFT
STATION
LOCATION
AT CHARLESTON ROAD
PUMP STATION
BRIDGE
OVERCROSSING
BRIDGE
OVERCROSSING
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
CALTRAIN
RIGHT OF WAY
(WEST)
CALTRAIN
RIGHT OF WAY
(EAST)
PALO ALTO
CITY LIMIT
Trench
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
E Compton Blvd, Compton, CA
Alameda Trench Corridor - Completed 2002
E Compton Blvd & Alameda Street, Compton, CA
Alameda Trench Corridor - Completed 2002
Mission Road and Ramona St, San Gabriel, CA
Alameda Corridor East
Mission Road - San Gabriel, CA
Alameda Corridor East
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Lowered)
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Trench
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Trench - Looking North
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Trench Solution Overview - Looking South West
Charleston intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Typical Property West of the Trench
Backyard View - Looking East
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Lowered)
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Meadow Drive Aerial View (Plan)
Meadow Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
Alma St
Park BlvdPark Blvd
Emerson St
E M
eadow Dr
2nd St
100 ft500 ft
See note
See note
NOTE:
beacons, to be considered in future phases.
traffic signals and rectangular rapid flashing
Additional features at crosswalks, such as HAWK
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
Profiles & Typical Section
Meadow Dr Underpass
Meadow Dr Underpass
Typical Section
Meadow Dr Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Emerson St
(North Side of Meadow Dr)
Park Blvd Profile
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Meadow Dr
Meadow Dr to NB Alma St
Ramp Profile
SB Alma St to Meadow Dr
Ramp Profile
a maximum span length of 60 ft)
(Based on a 2-span structure with
Top of Rail to Soffit = 6'-7"Note:
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
11'
EB Lane
8'11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
58' ±
Meadow Dr (East of Alma St)
Typical Section - Modification of Meadow/Roundabout Concept
12'
Ped/Bike Path
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Emerson St
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00 207+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
North Side
Side Street Profile from Park Blvd to Meadow
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
20
30
40
50
60
400+00 401+00
20
30
40
50
60
13'15'12'-6"12'
54'-6"
MT1 MT2(Beyond)
OCS Pole
Abutment WallEdge of Abutment = Face of Retaining Wall
1' (Typ)
See Note
(Looking South)
Bridge Typical Section at Meadow Dr
301+00 302+00 303+00 304+00 305+00
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
Crest curve designed for 21mph. 195.8' requiredSag curve designed for 10 mph and based on passenger comfort. 36.6 requiredSide Street Profile to NB Alma from MeadowMeadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
check 64 no plot for 9% slope
Crest curve designed for 25 mph. 209.9' required
Sag curve designed for 15 mph and based on passenger comfort. 67.7 required
501+00 502+00 503+00 504+00 505+00
10
20
30
40
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
Side Street Profile from SB Alma to Meadow
Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
check 64 no plot for 9% slope
Crest curve designed for 25 mph. 209.9' required
Sag curve designed for 15 mph and based on passenger comfort. 67.7 required
Alma St
-0.5%
Total Length = 730 ft
St
Emerson
Original Ground
195' VC
296' VC
190' VC
16' - 6"
-12%
+10%
-1%
15' - 6"
16' - 6"
Blvd
Park
Profile Grade
Bridge
Ped/Bike Bridge
Ped/Bike
16'
MT2
MT1
RR Bridge
100' VC
50' VC
Original Ground
9' - 6"
10' - 0"
0%
-1%
-5%
+5%
St
Emerson
Profile Grade
Blvd
Park
St
Alma
Bridge
Ped/Bike
12' - 0"
Bridge
Ped/Bike
MT1
MT2
RR Bridge
50' VC
11' - 0"
50' VC
35' VC
Ground
Original
0%
+8%
-2%
Grade
Profile
Dr
Meadow
40' VC
200' VC
-2%
Dr
Meadow
-0.4%
Profile Grade
Ground
Original
+15%
+12%
70' VC
210' VC
-2%
Dr
Meadow
-0.4%
Profile Grade
Ground
Original
Charleston Road Aerial View (Plan)
Charleston Underpass
Palo Alto Grade Separation Planning Study
Movement Diagram
Intersection Turning
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
LEGEND:
Track
Retaining Wall
Right-of-Way
Direction of Traffic
Structure
Roadway Modifications
Ped/Bike Ramps & Sidewalks
Planting Area
Adobe Cr
0 ft 175 ft87.5
Park Blvd
Alma St
Alma St
Park Blvd
W
Charleston Rd
Ely Pl
G
reenm
eadow W
ay
E Charleston Rd
Mumford Pl
Wright Pl
Ruthelma Ave
Carlson Ct
Profiles & Typical Section
Charleston Underpass
Charleston Rd Profile
Ped/Bike Profile from Park Blvd to Wright Pl
EB Charleston Rd to SB Alma St
Ramp Profile
Typical Section - Charleston Rd Underpass PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
Ramp Profile from Charleston to Alma
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
Ped/Bike Path from Park Blvd to Mumford
Charleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
-5%+4%
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
300+00 301+00 302+00 303+00 304+00 305+00 306+00 307+00299+00298+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
Ramp Profile from Charleston to AlmaCharleston/Meadow Underpass Concept (Elizabeth Alexis)
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
200+00 201+00 202+00 203+00 204+00 205+00 206+00
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
11'
EB Lane
12'
EB Lane
8'
5'
Sidewalk
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
11'
WB Lane
(Back of Exist Sidewalk)
Property Line
Shld
8'
Shld
14'
WB Lane
20'
2-Way Ped/Bike Path
~12'
Typical Section - Charleston Rd (East of Alma St - Looking East)
Alma St
MT2 MT1
Grade Separation Structure
Park Blvd
Wright Pl
Bridge
Ped/Bike
186' VC
296' VC
190' VC
15'-6"-12%
+10%
-1%
-1%
Original Ground
Profile Grade
16'-6"
17'-0"
MT2
MT1
Alma St
Wright Pl
50' VC
10'-0"
150' VC
10'-0"
-1%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
Blvd
Park
Road Profile
Governed by
50' VC
Charleston Rd
-2%
55' VC
+9%
425' VC
0%
Profile Grade
Original Ground
LOMA VERDE AVE
EL
VERAN
O
AV
E
CHARLESTO
N
RD
Alma St
Park Blvd
Park Blvd
EMERSON ST
M
EAD
OW
DR
LIDERO DR
TE
NN
N
ESEE
LN
FERNE AVE
LUNDY LANE
G
REE
NM
EAD
O
W
W
AY
FERNE CT
BEN LOMOND DR
LEGEND:
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 100 200
CHARLESTON RD
Landmark
Creek
Right Of Way
Caltrain
Ground Level
Existing
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
Curtner Ave
Ventura Ave
BARRO
N
CR
EE
K
AD
O
BE CREE
K
20
.5'
MEADOW DR
20
.5'
0
20
40
60
80
MEADOW DR
0
20
40
60
80
EL
E
V
A
TIO
N
(f
t)
120+00 125+00 130+00 135+00 140+00 145+00 150+00 155+00 160+00 165+00 170+00 175+00 180+00115+00110+00105+00
Tracks
Existing
Profile
Viaduct Track
AERIAL VIEW (PLAN)
ELEVATION VIEW (PROFILE)
Bridge
Track
New Permanent
Groundwater
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road - Plan and Profile - Viaduct
Outlet
Grocery
Robles Park
0.086%
Barron Creek
0.3%
-1.4%
Adobe Creek
-0.031%1.0%
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (WEST)
CALTRAIN RIGHT OF WAY (EAST)
DURING CONSTRUCTIONCONSTRUCTION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
END
ELEV 61.80
TOP OF RAIL
ELEV 55.45
TOP OF RAIL
EXISTING TRACKS
TO REMAIN OPERATIONAL
AND REMOVED AT END
OF CONSTRUCTION
ROADWAY
ROADWAY
VIADUCT PROFILE
TRACKS ON VIADUCT
PROPOSED NEW
APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION
Church
Methodist
United
St Andrew's
CITY LIMIT
PALO ALTO
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
Walnut Creek BART Station
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Examples
BART Viaduct, El Cerrito, CA BART Viaduct at distance, El Cerrito, CA
Link Light Rail, East Marginal Way, Seattle, WA
(Roadway At Grade, Railroad Fully Elevated)
(Typical Between Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd)
Example Section - Viaduct - Looking North
(Typical End Sections)
Example Section - Retained Fill - Looking North
(Typical Between Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd)
Track Level View - Looking North
Typical Property West of Tracks
Backyard View - Looking East
Meadow Drive Intersection
Proposed Viaduct Solution Overview - Looking South West
Charleston Road Intersection
Ground Level View - Looking South West
Viaduct
Railroad Grade Separation Sections & Renderings
PRELIMINARY
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 14, 2024 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy, Arce
Palo Alto Office of Transportation
,
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
RE: Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail
Crossing Assessment
The BPTP Update consultant team evaluated the merits of each location (Seale and Kellogg) for a grade
separated rail crossing based on the following assessment topics:
Prior analyses and plans
Proximity to alternative routes
Landing location
Network connectivity
Community input
The findings of the assessment are presented in Table 1.
Oakland, CA 94612
March 14, 2024 Page 2
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 1 Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
The 2012 BPTP identifies Seale Avenue as a
recommended location for an across barrier
connection.
The 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study
identified Seale Avenue a potential crossing
location.
The 2021 XCAP Report identified the addition
of a bike/ped crossing at Seale as a general
potential mitigation for the Churchill grade
separation. This option was selected with
mitigation.
Avenue as a recommended across barrier
connection or location for a grade separated
rail crossing.
The 2013 Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study identified Kellogg Avenue a potential crossing
location.
The 2021 XCAP Report included a ped/bike
tunnel as part of concept designs for the
Churchill Avenue Partial Underpass. This option
was not selected.
Proximity to alternative routes
of the Cal Ave Tunnel and about 1,850 feet
south of the at-grade rail crossing at Churchill
Ave.
of the at-grade crossing at Churchill and about
1,200 feet south of the grade-separated rail
crossing at Embarcadero.
Landing locations
There is space available at Peers Park for a
landing. Paly High School.
Network connectivity
Seale Avenue connects to the Serra Street/Park
Boulevard and Stanford Avenue east-west
bikeways (along with the north-south
Castilleja-Park-Wilkie Bicycle Boulevard) across
Caltrain.
Bike Path and Bryant Street Bike Boulevard.
Kellog Avenue terminates at Waverley Street
three blocks east of the rail line, limiting utility
of this route as a through connection.
Community input
during the BPTP Update indicate a strong
demand for a grade-separate bike/ped
crossing of Alma and the rail line. Ideas
proposed for a new crossing include an
map during the BPTP Update indicated
demand for grade separated crossings, they
did not identify Kellogg as a preferred
alignment.
March 14, 2024 Page 3
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Park.
Churchill Avenue, the crossing nearest to Seale,
was flagged as stressful for cyclists and
pedestrians, indicating a lower stress route is
desired. A grade separated crossing at Seale
would provide an alternate low-stress facility.
Overall prior plans and analyses, would fill a longer
gap between alternative crossing locations,
appears to have adequate space for a landing
location, would increase connectivity to the
transportation network, and has been identified as a potential alignment for a grade-
separated rail crossing in public involvement
efforts for the BPTP Update.
long a gap between crossing locations and
have limited utility in terms of increasing
network connectivity.
March 14, 2024 Page 4
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
REFERENCES
March 14, 2024 Page 5
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
BPTP Update – Existing Bicycle Facilities Map
Yellow = pedestrian-involved collisions
Orange = bicycle involved collisions
Red line = Kellog (northwest) and Seale (southeast) crossing locations
Green line = bike/ped path access to Paly
BPTP Update – Draft Technical Analyses
o Five-Year (2018-2022) Collisions TIMS
March 14, 2024 Page 6
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Rail Crossing Study
o Figure 4.1
March 14, 2024 Page 7
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
2021 Report of the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) on Grade Separations for Palo Alto,
page 57
March 14, 2024 Page 8
Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment Seale vs Kellogg Grade Separated Rail Crossing Assessment
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
School Catchment Area Maps - https://locator.pea.powerschool.com/?StudyID=171992
4-Track Analysis
11.21.23
AGENDA
Operations Considerations
4-Track Analysis
Purpose & Initial Approach
4-Track and Crossings
Preliminary Review
Next Steps and Engagement
4-Track Analysis
Corridor and Palo Alto Segments
Meeting Objectives
3
Review 4-Track Analysis
approach considerations and
trade-offs
Outline N. Santa Clara
Adopted Service Vision
segments
Discuss N. Santa Clara
Adopted Service Vision
segment observations and
constraints
Review operations
considerations
and analysis
Track Configuration Today
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
4
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segments
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
Main Track Line
Controlled SidingAdopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment Options
x
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
Notes:
* Identified in Business Plan
*
5
4-Track Analysis
Purpose & Initial Approach
4-Track Analysis Purpose
7
Provide location, length, and mile post limits based on 4-track segments identified in
the Caltrain Business Plan
Define required infrastructure to meet the 2040 Long Range Service Vision (Adopted
Service Vision) for Caltrain and HSR service
Utilize analysis of 4-track segments to guide grade separation projects
Purpose
Business Plan (2017-2019):
Growth Scenarios Recap
Moderate Growth (Adopted Service Vision)
•8 Caltrain trains + 4 HSR trains phpd
High Growth (Higher Growth Service)
•12 Caltrain trains + 4 HSR trains phpd
8
PCJPB agrees that it shall not take action
… that PCJPB knows or reasonably should
have known at the time of the action would
effectively preclude or make materially
more complicated or expensive CHSRA’s
future operation in the Peninsula Rail
Corridor…
–PFMA Section 5.3.1
4-Track Initial Planning Approach
•Tested 4-track layouts using
Caltrain, CPUC, and HSR
engineering criteria
•Evaluated and simulated service
parameters of 4-track layouts
•Refined and validated 4-track
limits through service operations
and engineering analysis
Service
ROWEngineering
Criteria
9
4-Track Initial Evaluation Process
North Santa Clara County Segments
Focused on trade-offs between operations, ROW, and design
Worked towards reducing potential impacts to the surrounding environment
(i.e., at-grade crossings, adjacent land use, buildings, and infrastructure)
Identified interdependencies between platform configuration, express/high-
speed services (110mph), and turnout design and configuration
Focused on horizontal layout, but considered vertical opportunities and
constraints
10
Operations
Considerations
Planning Parameter Assumptions
12
Planning Parameter Assumption
Headway / Separation 2-minute minimum corridor separation time
Minimum Turnaround Time HSR: 20 min
Caltrain: 20 min
Minimum Dwell Time HSR: 2 min
Caltrain: 1 min at major stations, 0.7 min at minor stations
Rolling Stock
HSR: Generic High-Speed Trainset
Caltrain: KISS EMU
Freight: Dash9
Speed Limit 110 mph (Class 6 Passenger Track)
50 mph (Freight Speed)
Recovery Time 10% Distributed
Adopted Service Vision -12 TPH (8 Caltrain + 4 HSR)
13
Proposed 4-track sections for
HSR Platform
Proposed 4-track sections for
overtakes
01:0003:20
Two Minute Separation: In & Out of a 4-Track Segment
14
1:50
05:00
03:2004:00
04:20
2-minute separation between trains
00:00
Station
02:5006:2004:20
2:20
00:00Control Point Control Point
Dwell Time
4-Track Segment
Analysis
Track Configuration Today
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
16
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segments
Adopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
Main Track Line
Controlled SidingAdopted Service Vision
4-Track Segment Options
x
Caltrain 50.94
= UP 51.64
Notes:
* Identified in Business Plan
*
17
The Mountain View Transit Center was identified as a potential 4-track segment for the adopted
Service Vision. The segment was removed prior to the 4-track analysis process due to:
•4-track capacity further north better supports blended service patterns
•Not operationally preferred in the adopted Service Vision for a 4 -track capacity because it
would not support service patterns developed under the Service Plan
Initial Trade-Offs &
Key Elements
18
Service
ROWDesign
Impact sites vs. impact corridors
Changing schedules or
overtakes vs. no changes
Turnout design
Ownership, RCUPBasis of design,
function, and trackway
Location of 4-Track
segments
Type of grade
separation
Location of 4-Track segment and service
resilience
Train Speed
Influence of Turnout Design on Service
19
Maximum
Allowable Speed
Transition
Length to Center
Platform with
Left Hand
Turnout
(Approximate)
Transition
Length to Center
Platform with
Right Hand
Turnout
(Approximate)
79 mph 1200 ft.1800 ft.
110 mph 1500 ft.2200 ft.
Turnout No.Passenger Train Speed
Through Turnout
20 50 mph
24 60 mph
Left Hand Turnout Right Hand Turnout
Typical Section for Running Track
•Parameter assumptions
presented in Basis of Design
•Tangent 4-track running track
section
•Reusing existing OCS
equipment where possible
20
Technical Analysis
Cross-sections
21
Operations
Turnouts
Alignment
Concept
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 29.7 -30.9
Length (miles)*1.2
Stations Impacted Palo Alto &
Stanford Stadium
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 2
Grade Separations Impacted 3
Active Projects Connecting Palo Alto
*Length includes 2-to 4-track transitions
Palo Alto Station Segment
High Community & Infrastructure Impacts
North Santa Clara Segment –Option A
Segment Location
22
x
Palo Alto Station Segment
San Francisquito
Creek Bridge and
El Palo Alto Tree El Camino Park
Palo Alto Southern
Pacific Station
Sutter Health
Center
Alma Street and
University Avenue
Caltrain CorridorArea of Influence
Palo Alto Station
North Santa Clara Segment –Option A
23
Palo Alto Station Segment
North Santa Clara Segment –Option A
Palo Alto Station
(Expanded & Relocated)
24
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
San Antonio Station
Segment
Palo Alto Station
Palo Alto
Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
California Ave Station Segment
Limited Community & Infrastructure Impacts
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 30.9 -32.8
Length (miles)*1.9
Stations Impacted California Avenue
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 2
Grade Separations Impacted 2
Active Projects Connecting Palo Alto
*Length includes 2-to 4-track transitions
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
Segment Location
26
x
California Avenue Station Segment
Alexander Peers
Park
California Avenue
Station
Oregon
Expressway
Caltrain CorridorArea of Influence
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
27
California Ave Station Segment
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
28
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift towards Alma Street, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
California Ave Station Segment
29
California Avenue Station
North Santa Clara Segment –Option B
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
California Avenue Station
Oregon
Expressway
California
Avenue Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
San Antonio Station Segment
High Community & Infrastructure Impacts –
Major Reconstruction
31
North Santa Clara Segment –Option C
Segment Location
Segment Characteristics
MP Limits MP 33.25 -34.60
Length (miles)*1.35
Stations Impacted San Antonio
At-Grade Crossings Impacted 3
Grade Separations Impacted 2
Active Projects
Connecting Palo Alto &
Rengstorff Grade
Separation
*Length includes 2-to 4-track transitions
x
San Antonio Station Segment
32
*Illustrative –Tracks can shift, and/or elevated, as concept is further developed.
Caltrain ROW Area of InfluenceLegend
San Antonio Station Segment
San Antonio Road
Overpass
33
San Antonio
Station
Caltrain CorridorArea of Influence
San Antonio Road Overpass
34
San Antonio Road Overpass
35
San Antonio Road Overpass
36
San Antonio
Station
Infrastructure
Impacts
Caltrain Corridor
Infrastructure Modifications
Northern Santa Clara County
Palo Alto (A)California (B)San Antonio (C)
Constraints •Palo Alto Southern Pacific
Station (SHPO -Cultural
Resource)
•University Ave/Alma Street
Interchange and Underpass
•San Francisquito Creek Bridge and
El Palo Alto Tree
•El Camino Park
•Homer Avenue pedestrian
undercrossing
•Sutter Health Center
•Palo Alto High School
•Residential areas surrounding
Caltrain ROW
•Alexander Peers Park
•Oregon Expressway –“T”
intersections for ramp
exits/entrances
•San Antonio Road Interchange and
Overpass
•Residential areas surrounding
Caltrain ROW
•Existing curve south of San Antonio
Station (Speed Constrain below
110 mph)
Adopted Service Vision
Refined 4-Track Segment
Station (Milepost)
38
Northern Santa Clara County Segment
Segment Option Consideredx
Northern Santa Clara County Preliminary Understanding
39
Validated 4-Track segment lengths
Assumes upgraded signaling system for 2 -minute buffer between
trains (current signal system allows for 4 -minute buffer)
Supports and provides operational flexibility for the service in the
Adopted Service Vision
Local train dwells 4 minutes (3 minutes more than standard 1 -minute
station dwell)
Operations Simulation of Segments
2
+3
4-Track Segments in Northern Santa Clara County were analyzed to evaluate trade -offs and determine the most viable
option to meet the needs of the Adopted Service Vision goals and Caltrain’s obligations for blended service in the corridor.
Caltrain will continue to coordinate with the city to not preclude future 4-track, as the city develops their Connecting
Palo Alto alternatives
Comments/Questions
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review
January 23, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org1
Purpose
2
Purpose
•Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on
specific elements.
•Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their
Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to
alternatives
Background
3
•Select Preferred Alternative to Proceed with
Preliminary Engineering and Environmental PhaseGoal
•Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)Grant Funding
Agreement in place by July 1, 2024.Objective
•Rail Committee to provide guidance to on
implementing design changes sufficient to support
the goal.Guidance
Background
4
CAP &
XCAP
•Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 -July 2020)
•Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August –October 2020)
•Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 -March 2021)
City
Council
•Council Review and Discussion
•Meadow Drive –Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) -August 2021
•Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) -November 2021
Rail
Committee
•Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023)
•Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria
•Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical
Caltrain /JPB
Review
•Service Agreement with Caltrain (June 2023)
•Technical Review and Comments to City November 2023
Overview of Caltrain Capital Project Management Process
5
Major Elements
6
Vertical Alignment
Vertical Clearance
Bridge Structure Elevation (Viaduct Only)
Railroad Grade Profile
Pedestrian and Bicycle Path Clearance
Horizontal Alignment
Roadway Encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities Encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Railroad Encroachment into City’s ROW
Retaining Wall offset/clearance from structures and roadways
Maintenance Access requirement along the railroad tracks
Clearance for MSE Wall construction during construction and
maximize use of ROW
Four Track Segment
Four Track segments and Roadway encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Four Tracking Alignment
Roadway Design
Road Profile, Sag Curves, Grades etc.
Offset from Barriers
Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes, Lane drops,
weaving distance, etc.
Roundabout Design
Curved bridges
Construction Technology
Shoofly vs Box Jacking
Culverts
Reconstructing and extending culverts
Cost Estimates
Preliminary Cost Estimates
Cumulative Concerns
Compounded impacts from above comments
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
7
1. Vertical Dimensions (Roadway Vertical Clearance required across Caltrain
ROW )
Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 15.5’ to
16.5’)
Likely affects
length of
roadway profileMeadow Charleston -Hybrid
Profile View
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Meadow Drive Underpass
Vertical Alignment (Correction)
8
2. Vertical Dimensions (Top of Rail to Top of Roadway –Viaduct Alternative only)
Vertical Clearance for vehicular traffic under the Railroad (Increase from 20.5’ to 24.0’)
Provide 24’
vertical distance
Provide 24’
vertical distance
Likely affects
length of
roadway profile
Meadow Charleston -Viaduct Alternative
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue
9
Churchill Closure with Mitigations -Option 1
•New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval
* No Changes for Churchill Avenue Closure with Mitigations Option 2
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Closure Option 1
10
Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track and 4-TrackNew active
transportation
facilities should be
placed outside of
Caltrain ROW. If not,
subject to JPB Board
approval.
Extend tunnel to
extent of Caltrain
ROW
Relocate stairs
outside of
Caltrain ROW. If
not, subject to
JPB Board
approval.
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Closure Option 2
11
Alma St
Mariposa
Ave
Plan View
Section A-A
Section B-B
4-Track
Influence Area
Transition between 2-Track
and 4-Track
Show lane
width and
shoulder
dimension
s
No Major/Significant
Concerns
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue
12
Churchill -Partial Underpass
•New active transportation facilities should be placed outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, they are subject to JPB Board approval.
•Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW.
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway
•Bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency
vehicles.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO
‘Highway Safety Manual’
Profile View
Extend bridge width to
Caltrain ROW to provide
access to Caltrain
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
4-Track Influence Area
Transition between
2-Track and 4-Track
New active transportation
facilities should be placed
outside of Caltrain ROW.
If not, subject to JPB
Board approval.
Summary of Comments -Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
13
Roadway & Walls to
be outside of
Caltrain ROW
Provide 16’-6”
vertical clearance
Will affect length
roadway profile,
ROW, Driveways,
intersection,etc.
Other elements:
•Merging taper/median
design
•Offset from barriers
•Lane width etc.
•Curved bridges
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
14
Meadow Charleston -Underpass
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW—will require reprofiling of roadway.
•Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and
emergency vehicles.
•Adjust retaining walls outside of Caltrain ROW to accommodate 4-track and 4-
track transitions, provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle
access, and maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO
‘Highway Safety Manual’
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr -Underpass
15
Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Adjust wall/foundation design
and location to be outside of
the Caltrain ROW. Additional
width is not needed for turning
lane sight distance.
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW,
which will impact ROW,
Driveways, road profile.
Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Summary of Comments –Charleston Rd -Underpass
16
Plan View (Meadow Drive)
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Min vertical clearance is 16’-
6” across ROW,which will
impact ROW,Driveways, road
profile.
Min vertical
clearance is 10’
across ROW
Caltrain
ROW Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Increase bridge width to
provide access road for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Steep grade limits
options for design
flexibility
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
17
Meadow Charleston -Hybrid
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain
ROW.
•Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and
maximize utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) clearance from the walls to the roadway
or structures
•Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly
track—constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad.
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Hybrid
18
Plan View
Profile
Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-
track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Min vertical clearance requirement
is 16’-6” across ROW
Provide additional width on the
bridge to accommodate access
road for maintenance and
emergency vehicles
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track
Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should
be tangent as special
trackwork should stay
outside of vertical curves
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr -Hybrid
19
Profile View
Plan View
Typical Section
Min vertical clearance is
16’-6” across ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Width not
sufficient for
maintenance
vehicle access
Provide additional
width on the bridge to
accommodate a
maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Summary of Comments –Charleston Rd -Hybrid
20
Min 16’6”
clearance across
Caltrain ROW
Plan View
Profile View
Min vertical
clearance is 16’-6”
across ROW
10’ to maximize
utility of ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
10’ min for maintenance access
between face of retaining walls/
barriers and adjacent
obstruction/roadway
Confirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Provide additional
width to the bridge
for maintenance and
emergency vehicle
access
Typical Section
Summary of Comments –Meadow Drive & Charleston Road
21
Meadow Charleston -Viaduct
•Provide 16’6” vertical clearance requirement for the extent of the Caltrain ROW—
will require reprofiling of roadway and/or Caltrain tracks.
•The vertical dimension from the top of the roadway to the top of the rail should be
24’ instead of 20’ to accommodate 5-foot bridge depth and 2’-6” Rail.
•Provide bridge width to provide access for Caltrain maintenance and emergency
vehicles.
•Adjust retaining walls to accommodate 4-track and 4-track transitions.
•Provide sufficient space (10’ min) for maintenance vehicle access and maximize
utility of Caltrain ROW.
•Construction of permanent MSE walls to be at 20’ from center of shoofly track—
constructability clearance from OCS and active railroad.
•Roadway design to meet Caltrans HDM/AASHTO ‘Greenbook’/AASHTO ‘Highway
Safety Manual’
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Viaduct
22
4-Track Influence Area Transition between 2-Track and 4-Track Fill retaining walls to accommodate 4-
track and transition between 2-track
and 4-track
1% grade is the current maximum
without variance. 1% to 2% grade
requires review and approval by the
Director of Engineering
Increase distance roadway to top of
rail to 24’ to accommodate 16’-6”
roadway clearance
Design speed is 110
mph for passenger
rail
Transition segment should be tangent as
special trackwork should stay outside of
vertical curves
Plan View
Profile
Summary of Comments –Meadow Dr & Charleston Rd -Viaduct
23
Place the permanent track
alignment to enable
maintenance and maximize
utility of ROW
16’-6” min
from roadway
to soffit
10’ min for maintenance
access between face of
retaining walls/ barriers and
adjacent
obstruction/roadwayConfirm proximity of OCS
and centerline of tracks
Extend OCS
foundation to
connect with
bridge pier
The plans show
part of the viaduct
constructed
outside Caltrain
ROW
Typical End Section Typical Section
Next Steps
24
Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate
alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is
seeking
•Rail Committee’s review of comments to provide guidance to staff on
specific elements.
•Direct staff to proceed coordination with Caltrain Staff or their
Consultants and/or City’s project consultant for material changes to
alternatives
25
Connecting Palo Alto Projects
Caltrain Technical Review Results
March 19, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org1
City and Caltrain Staff
City Staff
•Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official
•Ripon Bhatia, Senior Engineer
Caltrain Staff
•Robert Barnard,Chief, Rail Design and
Construction
•Mike Rabinowitz, Principal Planner
•Navi Dhaliwal, Government & Community
Affairs Officer
•Edgar Torres, Consultant, Kimley Horn and
Associates
2
Purpose
3
Purpose
•Review of the Grade Separation Alternatives for Churchill Avenue,
Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings, including Consideration
of Caltrain’s Review and Results
•Rail Committee’s reviews and provide guidance and directions to staff.
•Recommend that Council Advances (or Eliminates) Specific Alternative(s)
for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation.
Background
4
CAP &
XCAP
•Alternatives developed, reviewed and updated (2018 -July 2020)
•Community Outreach & Community Feedback (August –October 2020)
•Deliberation and Recommendation to City Council (November 2020 -March
2021)
City
Council
•Council Review and Discussion
•Meadow Drive –Charleston (Narrowed Alternatives) -August 2021
•Churchill Avenue (Preferred Alternative & Backup Selection) -November 2021
Rail
Committee
•Reviewed and Refined underpass alternatives (June 2023)
•Reviewed and updated Council Adopted criteria (May 2023)
•Conducted Review of Preliminary Geotechnical (August 2023)
•Study Session of Caltrain four-track segment analysis (November 2023)
•Discussion of Caltrain comments with Rail Committee (January 2024)
•Reviewed Updated Summary of Evaluation Criteria (February 2024)
AGENDA
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Schedule
Caltrain’s Results of
Process by Alternative
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Executive Summary
Next Steps
Project Planning
6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov
City
Caltrain
VTA
FRA
Rail
Committee
City
Council
City and Caltrain to collaborate for Selection of alternatives to
advance into next phase
Develop Service Agreement and/or Cooperative Agreement
with VTA, Caltrain, City for PE & Env Phase
City and Caltrain collaborate to develop and execute agreement with FRA
Review Alternatives Recommend Local
Preferred Alternative(s)
City Council to review and select
Locally Preferred Alternative(s) for
next phase
Begin PE & Environmental
Prepare and Execute Funding Agreement
Execute FRA Funding Agreement
Next Steps
7
Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate
alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is
seeking
•Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for
recommendation to the City Council
•Study session with City Council (April 2024)
•City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into
Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for
Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
•Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative
Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain &
VTA
CONNECTING PALO ALTO CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL REVIEW
M A R C H 1 9 , 2 0 2 4
Caltrain’s engagement on Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives
•Execute Service agreement
•Initial review against Caltrain’s 2024 standards and policies
•Meetings with Palo Alto staff to share initial observations
•Presentation to Palo Alto’s January Rail Committee of initial observations
•Today -presentation with an intent to focus on developing solutions
Caltrain’s Engagement
Developed draft solutions based on available planning
level information
•Deeper dive analysis to support decision-making
•Seeking to balance needs of railroad and community
•Maintain utility of region’s investment in Caltrain
•Enable community’s vision for Palo Alto
•Intent to minimize additional private property impacts
Caltrain’s Partnership
Caltrain Partnership
1/29 •Engineering Team workshop of potential design and constructability solutions for all alternatives
(internal)
1/30 •Shared potential design and constructability solutions with City
•Received Questions from City
1/31
•Caltrain Team met with Chief Safety Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Director of Engineering
regarding solutions and questions (internal)
•Shared feedback on design and constructability solutions with City
2/1 •Caltrain Team met with Executive Director regarding solutions and Caltrain expectations (internal)
2/2 -2/9 •Caltrain Team begins applying direction to exhibits and materials (internal)
•Ongoing coordination between City staff and Caltrain
2/13 and 2/16 •Caltrain Team shares materials with City staff
3/19 •Rail Committee presentation
Steps Guiding Solution-Oriented Thinking
Reviewed Connecting Palo Alto Alternatives with a focus on
•Safety –Constructability
•Engineering –Practical Constraints
•Maintenance and Operations
•Policy and Agreements –Ensure projects are designed to meet Caltrain's future
railroad needs and preserve property rights.
•Design Criteria “Preserve the existing ROW” (2007, 2011, 2020, 2024)
•Rail Corridor Use Policy (RCUP) (2020)
•Property Conveyance and fee schedule policy (2010, 2021)
•California High Speed Rail Authority agreements
•Union Pacific Railroad agreements
Caltrain’s Focus of Review
Railroad property is Caltrain’s most valuable and durable asset
•Caltrain will explore encroachments through revocable license agreements subject to
appraisals, annual fees escalated at CPI, and Board approval via the RCUP and
Property Conveyance processes.
•For all alternatives and configurations requiring temporary use of Palo Alto right-of-
way, a future "construction, operation, and maintenance agreement" between the
City and Caltrain is needed.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Current at-grade crossings support
Caltrain’s use of its full ROW width
for railroad purposes
2021 Conveyance Policy
“Staff will analyze the request to
ensure . . . applicant’s
improvements are designed to be
compatible with the broadest range
of possible transportation
alternatives for the entire width of
the ROW”
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Provide a minimum 15’-6”
vertical clearance with
variance and sacrificial
beams across entire
width of Railroad ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
•City designs that do not allow for above may proceed, but City will be responsible for re-
building roads, or the incremental cost to the railroad to utilize the Caltrain ROW.
Caltrain’s Guiding Principles
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain
ROW
Caltrain must be able to retain the utility and durability of Caltrain’s ROW now and in the future.
Caltrain is seeking to be held fiscally harmless from the City of Palo Alto’s selected alternative.
Executive Summary
Churchill Summary of Findings
Alternative Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
High-level
Findings
•Roadway and railroad
improvements viable with
refinements to Alma Street cross
section
•Bikeway western encroachment
into Caltrain ROW not viable
•Reduce width of pathway facility to
fit within available 25’ expired easement
or widen to the west
•Or relocate pathway undercrossing
to Seale Ave/Peers Park (under
preliminary review by others)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
•Moderately
viable with
refinements,less
than optimal
ramp width (~7’)
•Wider eastern
ramp would impact
Alma Street travel
lanes
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
•Viable
as shown
Viaduct
•Viable with refinements
•Permanent impact to Alma travel
lanes for approach structures
(19’)
•Reducing the impact to Alma
travel lanes for approach
structures requires a new shoofly
track (6’)
•To retain use of Alma travel lanes
below viaduct requires a more
complex structure
•Caltrain to retain existing at grade
tracks for railroad purposes
Meadow/Charleston Summary of Findings
Alternative Hybrid
High-level
Findings
•Viable with refinements
•Includes elevating
width of Caltrain’s ROW
to retain utility
•Shoofly tracks will
impact Alma travel lanes
(12’)during construction
Underpass
•Viable with
refinements
*Trench Alternative: At the City of Palo Alto’s request, Caltrain was not charged with reviewing the trench alternative after it was replaced by
the viaduct alternative within the Service Agreement.
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)(With Mitigations)(With Mitigations)
Maximum 3’ encroachment into Caltrain, revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
Interior of bridge to accommodate: 25’ offset from MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and 12.5’ offset from MT2 track center (towards private property)
New tracks must be 15’ on center Widen railroad bridge to accommodate 12.5’ offset from MT 2
Remain in existing 25’ easement (expired) or widen to west
No further encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Existing 25’ easement for Embarcadero Bike Path has expired, a revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Churchill Partial UnderpassExisting 25’ easement for Embarcadero Bike Path has expired, a revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed with variance but will require a sacrificial beam with an agreement for the City to cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain operations) if beam were to be struck
Longer bridge span to accommodate design vehicle turning templates
Churchill Partial Underpass
w/ Kellogg Undercrossing
Churchill Partial Underpass
with Kellogg Undercrossing Summary
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)(With Mitigations)
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Churchill Closure
w/ Kellogg Underpass Summary
Under preliminary review by others:
Locate bike path at Seale Ave connecting
Peers Park
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
(With Kellogg Undercrossing LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Viable as shown
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Meadow/Charleston HybridTracks will be aligned as far west as the southern portion of ROW allows and retaining walls will be placed to maximize utility of Caltrain ROW
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Place western retaining wall at 10’ from residential property line.
Place eastern retaining wall after removal of shoofly on Alma St property line Temporary wall will be required between activation of hybrid tracks and removal of shoofly
Caltrain will be allowed to close a lane on Alma St to inspect retaining walls. Permits will be at no cost to Caltrain and will not be unreasonably withheld.
If bridge minimum vertical clearance (16’-6” or 15’-6” with a variance and sacrificial beam) is not achieved across Caltrain ROW, if in the future the full width is needed for Railroad purposes, it will be the City’s choice to rebuild road or pay incremental cost for raising portion of railroad corridor.
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Interim Condition
Shoofly tracks will impact Alma travel lanes
(12’) during construction
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Retained fill between temporary wall and Alma Street wall to maintain utility of Caltrain operating ROW.
Interim Condition Final Condition
95’ North of Meadow
100’ South of Meadow
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
80’
Implications of ROW Offset
at Meadow Drive
95’100’
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Existing Condition
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Meadow
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT2
MT1
Construction zone
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
construction barrier/fence
Build New Shoofly
Tracks along Alma
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
9'
26'
10'
18'
45'
SF2
SF1
Build SF1
Build SF2
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
Shoofly Tracks along Alma
operational
SF2
SF1
45’
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Build Hybrid and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
SF2
SF1
New Main Track 1: MT1
New Main Track 2: MT2
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
25’ clearance between track center and
temporary retaining wall
MT2
MT1
Remove Temporary Shoofly tracks along Alma
Street
Construction zone
SF2
SF1
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Shoofly tracks removed, prepare for next phase Construction zone
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Build Final Eastern Retaining Wall and Retain Fill
Final Retaining Wall
Construction zone
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
Example South of Meadow
MT2
MT1
Final Condition
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
MT1
MT2
MT1
MT2
SF1 SF2
25’ clearance between track
center and fence45’
NORTH of Meadow Avenue Bridge
Looking South Final
Existing
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024
Plan View
Meadow Drive
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Tie-ins will require additional engineering and constructability evaluation during Preliminary Engineering
Caltrain will retain use of remaining tracks for railroad purposes as it deems necessary.
With a 13’ translated shoofly, viaduct and approach structures will need to be placed over Alma Street ROW. Viaduct will be required to provide 16’6” vertical clearance from structure and appurtenances.
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Main Track 1: MT1
Main Track 2: MT2
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
49.5’ 25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
Viaduct and Approach Structure
Footprint without Shoofly
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
Example South of Charleston
Existing Condition
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
MT2
MT1
SF2
Build New Shoofly 2
Build SF2
Example South of Charleston
Shoofly 2: SF2
MT2
MT1
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Example South of Charleston
SF1
SF2
Build Viaduct and Approach Structures with
Permanent MT1 and MT2
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Construction zone
52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Shoofly 1: SF1
Shoofly 2: SF2
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Example South of Charleston
Final Condition
Siding 2
Siding 1
Tracks to remain for future railroad use
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
MT2
MT1 52’
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
SF1
SOUTH of Charleston Road
Looking South
Using Shoofly Tracks
SF2MT2
MT1
52’
25’ clearance between track
center and structure
Source: Google Earth, Google Street View, April 2023, Accessed February 2024
North of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road and 2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
South of Meadow Viaduct
Approach structure approximately 1,600 feet long south of Charleston Road and 2,000 feet long north of Meadow Dr
Meadow/Charleston Viaduct
Existing Tracks at Grade to Remain in Place
Viaduct and approach structures will need to be placed over/on Alma Street ROW
Caltrain's Results of Preliminary Review by Alternative
Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)Closure w/ Kellogg Underpass
Hybrid Viaduct Underpass
Meadow/Charleston Alternatives
Churchill Alternatives
Partial Underpass
w/Kellogg Undercrossing (LPA)
Closure Option 1
(With Mitigations)
Closure Option 2
(With Mitigations)
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Meadow UnderpassWill require revocable license agreement
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Provide required OCS pole offset
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks –15’ on track center
Meadow Underpass
•Interior of bridge over Meadow Dr to
accommodate 25’offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and
12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property
•Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Meadow Dr
•15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Meadow Underpass Summary
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Charleston Underpass
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Provide required OCS pole offset
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks -15’ on track center
Charleston Underpass
•Interior of bridge over Charleston Rd to
accommodate 25’ offset from proposed
MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and
12.5’offset from proposed MT 2 track
center (towards private property)
•Add maintenance crossovers on either
side of bridge over Charleston Rd
•15’-6” vertical clearance is allowed but
will require a variance and sacrificial
beam with an agreement for the City to
cover the cost (of repair and Caltrain
operations) if beam were to be struck
Charleston Underpass Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Next Steps
64
Next Steps
The goal is to provide sufficient information for Rail Committee to evaluate
alternatives and make recommendation to the City Council. Therefore, Staff is
seeking
•Rail Committee’s review and selection of preferred alternative for
recommendation to the City Council
•Study session with City Council (April 2024)
•City Council to select preferred alternative for advancement into
Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation phase for
Meadow and Charleston Crossing (May/June 2024)
•Execute Agreement with FRA and Service Agreement/Cooperative
Agreement for Preliminary Engineering & Environmental with Caltrain &
VTA
65
Rail Committee Meeting
Review of Updated Materials
Grade Separation Projects
May 23, 2024 www.cityofpaloalto.org1
AGENDA
Purpose
Technical Reviews
Draft and deliberative -For discussion purposes only
Project Planning
Next Steps
Alternatives Update
•Churchill Avenue
•Meadow Drive
•Charleston Road
Background
Purpose
3
Purpose
•Review of the updated Grade Separation materials for Churchill Avenue,
Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings
Background
4
CAP & XCAP City Council Rail Committee Caltrain/PCJPB
•Alternatives developed,
reviewed and updated
(2018 -July 2020)
•Community Outreach &
Community Feedback
(August –October 2020)
•Deliberation and
Recommendation to City
Council (November 2020 -
March 2021)
•Council Review and Discussion
•Meadow Drive –
Charleston (Narrowed
Alternatives) -August
2021
•Churchill Avenue
(Preferred Alternative &
Backup Selection) -
November 2021
•Approved Amendment with
AECOM June 2021
•Approve Updated Council
Adopted Evaluation Criteria
(June 2023)
•Study Session to Review the
Grade Separation Alternatives
(April 2024)
•Stakeholder Outreach and
Review of Underpass
Alternative (July –Nov 2022)
•Reviewed and Refined
underpass alternatives (Dec
2022 -May 2023)
•Reviewed and updated
Council Adopted criteria
(March-April 2023)
•Conducted Review of
Preliminary Geotechnical
Analysis (August 2023)
•Reviewed Matrix with
updated Council Adopted
Evaluation Criteria (Feb 2024)
•Service Agreement with
Caltrain (December 2022 -
June 2023)
•Technical Review and
Comments from Caltrain
(November 2023 –
January 2024)
•Four Tracking Review and
Comments from Caltrain
(November 2023)
•Caltrain Technical Review
Results (January –April
2024)
Project Planning -Rail Grade Separation Design and Approval Process
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Identify Project
Need Secure
Funding &
Programming
Prepare Project
Report &
Environmental
Studies
Secure Caltrain
& Other Agency
Approvals
Complete
Design,
Acquisition &
Agreements
Prepare
Construction
Contract
Construction
Consideration of
Alternatives
Prelim Engineering
(Caltrain):
•Rail Operations
•Freight
•Safety/Security
•Structural
•Hydraulics
•Geotechnical
•Constructability
Prelim Engineering
(City/Others):
•Traffic/Bike/Ped
•Property Needs
•Utilities
Conceptual
Engineering
Alternatives
Evaluation
Estimate Cost,
Schedule, and
Scope
Secure
Funding
Source(s)
Agency
Commitment
to Proceed
with Project
Development
Formal Review
& Approval of
Project Report
&
Environmental
Document
(PR & ED)
Prepare Plans,
Specifications &
Estimates (PS&E)
for Construction
Acquire Properties
incl. Temporary
Construction
Easements
Final Interagency
Construction &
Operations
Agreements
Obtain Permits
from Resource and
Responsible
Agencies
Prepare Traffic &
Constr. Mgt Plan
Problem
Statement
WE ARE
HERE
5
Project Planning
6
Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sept
Review and selection of alternatives to
advance into next phase
Develop Service Agreement and/or Cooperative
Agreement with VTA, Caltrain, City for PE & Env
Phase
Develop and Execute Funding agreement
with FRA
City Council Review Alternatives
for Selection of Preferred
Alternative(s)
Begin PE & Environmental
Technical Review –Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria
Elements included in the Evaluation Criteria are as follows
A.Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation
B.Reduce delay and congestion for vehicular traffic at rail crossings
C.Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the rail corridor, separate from
vehicles
D.Support continued rail operations and Caltrain service improvements
E.Finance with feasible funding sources (order of magnitude cost)
F.Minimize right-of-way acquisition (Private property only)
G.Environmental Factors such as, Reduce rail noise and vibration, Sea Level Rise Susceptibility, Heat
Island Effect, Stormwater Treatment
H.Maintain access to neighborhoods, parks, and schools along the corridor, while reducing regional
traffic on neighborhood streets
I.Minimize visual changes along the corridor
J.Minimize disruption and duration of construction
K.Order of Magnitude cost
7
Technical Review -Alternatives Under Council Consideration
8
Churchill Avenue Alternatives
Partial Underpass
Alternative (Local Preferred
Alternative)
Closure with Mitigations (Backup)
Option 1 and 2
Meadow –Charleston Alternatives (Council)
Trench
Hybrid
Underpass Alternative
* Viaduct Alternative was considered by Rail Committee for
additional review
Technical Review –Additional
Refined to incorporate feedback from stakeholders
Added Buffer Zones between vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian
facilities
Reduced vehicular lane widths
Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Improved maneuverability and turning radius
9
Technical Review -Caltrain Engagement & Technical Review
Engagement with Caltrain
Grade Separation Projects Service Agreement
Caltrain Corridor Crossing Strategy Meetings
City & County Staff Coordination Group (CSCG) Meetings
Local Policy Makers Group (LPMG) Meetings
10
Technical Review -Four Tracking Segments
Four tracking segments at the following three locations were
evaluated:
Palo Alto Avenue Station (Four tracking between Palo Alto
Avenue and Churchill Avenue)
California Avenue Station (Four tracking between Churchill
Avenue and Meadow Drive)
San Antonio Station (Four tracking between Rengstorff and
Charleston Road)
11
Technical Review -Caltrain Engagement & Technical Review
Major Elements from Technical Review
Addressed updated vertical clearance requirements
Improved horizontal alignments to address Caltrain standards
Reduced Right of Way Encroachments
Considered Four Tracking Segment Design
Updated plans to reflect new operation and maintenance
requirements to address overhead contact system.
12
Technical Review -Kellogg Avenue Vs Seale Avenue Crossing
13
•Prior analyses and plans
•Proximity to alternative routes
•Landing location
•Network connectivity
•Community input
Technical Review –Conceptual Phase Property Impact Assessment
Project is currently in conceptual phase (about 5% level of design)
At this early phase, the project is identifying the potential properties
that may tentatively be impacted, though further design and
engineering is needed in the next phase
Rail Committee directed to reduce impacts to properties through
refinements to the design during the Preliminary Engineering Phase
The Rail Committee/City Council will have an opportunity to review
and determine property impacts after the Preliminary Engineering
Phase and before advancing to Final Design.
14
Technical Review –Real Estate Regulations
Federal and State Regulations: The Federal and State Regulations has specific requirements
for property impacts assessment and acquisitions.
Federal: U.S. Constitution, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) (49 CFR Part
24)
State: California Constitution, California Government Code, California Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (CCR
Title 25, Chapter 26), and the California Code of Civil Procedure
Grade Separation Projects: The grade separation project involves State and Federal funding
and therefore will be subject to these requirements.
15
Technical Review –Real Estate Regulations
Example of Community Information: The VTA has developed a set of Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs) and provided information to the community on the applicable processes
and regulations.
Find detailed information on the VTA’s website for the BART Project at the following link:
https://www.vta.org/projects/bart-sv/phase-ii/real-estate
Link to FAQ:https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/Real-AcquisitionVTA-Projects.pdf
Link to Document: Your Property…. Your Transportation Project:
https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/your-property-your-rights-information.pdf
16
Churchill Partial Underpass
17
Churchill Partial Underpass
with Kellogg Undercrossing Summary
Maximum 3’ encroachment into Caltrain, revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Partial Underpass w/
Kellogg Undercrossing
Interior of bridge to accommodate: 25’ offset from MT1 track center (towards Alma St) and 12.5’ offset from MT2 track center (towards private property)
New tracks must be 15’ on center Widen railroad bridge to accommodate 12.5’ offset from MT 2
Remain in existing 25’ easement (expired) or widen to west
No further encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Existing 25’ easement for Embarcadero Bike Path has expired, a revocable license agreement is required, subject to appraisal, annual fee (indexed to CPI), and Board approval
Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
20
Widened & elongated Bridge
and outside walls providing
space for maintenance and
emergency vehicles
Reduced Caltrain
ROW encroachment
Updated Roadway profile to reflect
new vertical clearance requirements
Adjusted the horizontal
alignment and spacing
between tracks, OCS poles,
Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
21
Provide 16’-6” clearance in the
entire Full Caltrain ROW Width
Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements
Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements Increased grades to from 6.5% to 8%
minimize the limits impacts to
project footprint
Increased grades to from 11% to
12% to minimize the limits impacts
to project footprint
Increased grades to from 7% to 8%
minimize the limits impacts to
project footprint
Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
22
Widened and elongated the bridge
Added the center column
Reduced Shoulder width to minimize
encroachment into Caltrain ROW
Reduced Lane Widths
Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
23
Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
24
Churchill Avenue –Partial Underpass
25
106
(695)
110
118
126
138
1415
(277)
114
142
14
2
5
(2
0
0
)
14
3
5
(1
9
5
)
14
4
5
(2
6
7
)
105
(317)
102
(383)
103
(544)
119
117
123
135
13
4
7
(2
1
)
13
2
5
to
13
4
5
15
2
5
(1
8
8
)
15
4
5
(1
9
3
)
15
5
1
(1
8
8
)
15
5
5
(2
3
7
)
109 A 102
(217)
109
(343)
96
111
119
129
135
143
122
112
120
128
136
118
140
1511 1519
1527 1539 1547
1563
92 1512 1520
1528 1540 1550
1560
Ch
u
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
86
62
Tentative Property impacts based on current
conceptual phase. To be refined in future phases
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Meadow Drive Underpass
27
Meadow Underpass Summary
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Meadow UnderpassWill require revocable license agreement
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Provide required OCS pole offset
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks –15’ on track center
Meadow Drive -Underpass
30
Adjusted the horizontal alignment
and spacing between tracks, OCS
poles, and outside walls
Updated Roadway profile to reflect
new vertical clearance requirements
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing space
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Meadow Drive -Underpass
31
Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements
Provide 16’-6” clearance in the
entire Full Caltrain ROW Width
Increased vertical clearance for
Pedestrian crossing from 8.0’ to 9’-6”
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing space
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Meadow Drive -Underpass
32
Adjust the rail track offsets and
bridge width to meet Caltrain
updated standards
Widened Bridge to
accommodate updated
standards providing space for
maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Meadow Drive -Underpass
33
Meadow Drive -Underpass
34
Meadow Drive -Underpass
35
35
5
3
Al
m
a
35
5
3
35
5
3
35
5
3
35
5
3
35
5
3
35
5
3
35
5
3
17
1
(1
5
7
)
40
9
7
Pa
r
k
40
9
3
40
8
5
40
8
1
40
7
9
40
7
5
40
6
0
40
6
8
40
7
0
40
8
0
150
(697)150A
250
(77)
270
41
0
1
41
0
3
41
0
5
41
0
7
41
0
4
212
Me
a
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Tentative Property impacts based
on current conceptual phase. To
be refined in future phases
Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address
Charleston Road Underpass
37
Charleston Underpass Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Pedestrian bridges typically have additional vertical clearance due to vulnerable users
Interior of bridge extend 25’ from MT1 (towards Alma Street) and 12.5’ from MT2 (towards private property)
Charleston Underpass
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Maintenance vehicle crossing
Provide required OCS pole offset
Place fence on Caltrain ROW line
Track alignment shifted to west
New tracks -15’ on track center
Charleston Road-Underpass
40
Adjusted the horizontal alignment
and spacing between tracks, OCS
poles, and outside walls
Updated Roadway profile to reflect
new vertical clearance requirements
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing space
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Charleston Road-Underpass
41
Charleston Road-Underpass
42
Extended the limits of roadway
profile to address vertical and
horizontal clearance requirements
Increased vertical clearance from
15’-6” to 16’-6” within Caltrain ROW
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing spacing
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Charleston Road-Underpass
43
Charleston Road-Underpass
44
Charleston Road-Underpass
45
Charleston Road-Underpass
46
41
8
7
41
8
3
41
7
3
41
8
0
42
2
5
42
1
7
42
0
7
42
0
3
42
0
1
(3
5
1
)
42
3
1
42
3
7
4206
42
0
0
(1
0
6
3
)
265
(1044)
275
(952)
285
(437)
220
(200)
240
(666)
250
270
280
42
0
1
&
42
0
1
A
(4
4
4
)
42
0
5
42
1
5
Ch
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(
w
e
s
t
s
i
d
e
)
Tentative Property impacts based
on current conceptual phase. To
be refined in future phases
Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address
102
(2235)
174
126
(114)
160
170
214
228
(180)
242
Charleston
256
Charleston
27
2
(5
1
)
3787
(240)
11
0
(8
7
3
)
14
5
(9
8
0
)
13
7
(6
8
9
)
12
9
(9
1
7
)
109
(461)
119
110
122
127
161
124
Ch
a
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
R
d
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
(
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
)
Tentative Property impacts based
on current conceptual phase. To
be refined in future phases
Tentative Full
Property Acquisition
Tentative Partial
Property Acquisition
Tentative No
Property Acquisition
Legend
Address
Area(SQFt)
Address
Address
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
49
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid
80’
Implications of ROW Offset
at Meadow Drive
95’100’
Plan View
Meadow Drive
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Meadow/Charleston Hybrid Summary
Plan View
Charleston Road
Meadow Drive -Hybrid
53
Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for maximizing ROW use
by Caltrain
Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for full ROW use
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Meadow Drive -Hybrid
54
Increased vertical clearance from
15’-6” to 16’-6” within Caltrain ROW
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing spacing
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Meadow Drive -Hybrid
55
Meadow Drive -Hybrid
56
Meadow Drive -Hybrid
57
Charleston Road-Hybrid
58
Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for maximizing ROW use
by Caltrain
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Moved the Retaining wall
10’ from property line
Moved Retaining Walls per Caltrain
comments for full ROW use
Charleston Road-Hybrid
59
Increased vertical clearance from
15’-6” to 16’-6” within Caltrain ROW
Widened Bridge to accommodate
updated standards providing spacing
for maintenance and emergency
vehicles
Charleston Road-Hybrid
60
Charleston Road-Hybrid
61
Charleston Road-Hybrid
62
Estimated Costs
63
Alternative Estimate
Previous
range 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Increase
by %
2031
Range
Hybrid 210 190-230 331 344 358 372 387 403 419 436 102%390-480
Meadow/ Charleston
Underpass 380 340-420 582 605 629 655 681 708 736 766 107%690-850
Meadow/ Charleston
Viaduct 450 400-500 679 706 734 764 794 826 859 894 99%790-970
Churchill
Partial Underpass 180 160-200 220 229 238 247 257 268 278 290 61%260-320
Notes
•Estimated Costs is Million Dollars
•Previous cost estimates are from 2018 escalated to 2025 with 3% inflation
•New estimates are based on current costs with 4% inflation up to 2031
Charleston/Meadow Rail Committee Recommendations
64
The Rail Committee Recommendations
•Recommended Seale Avenue for Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at
for the Partial Underpass Alternative at Churchill Avenue Crossing to
advance into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation
Phase.
•Recommended the Underpass Alternative and Hybrid Alternative at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road as the preferred options to the City
Council for advancement into the Preliminary Engineering review
•Seek ways to reduce property impacts
•Optimize bike/pedestrian crossings and where feasible, improve connections to
bike infrastructure beyond the study area to improve the network
•Further refine the traffic circle on Charleston Road to reduce the property
impacts
•Refine construction impacts to better understand possible mutations needed
during the lengthy construction process.
Next Steps
65
Seek ways to reduce property impacts
Optimize bike/pedestrian crossings and where feasible, improve connections to bike
infrastructure beyond the study area to improve the network
Improve connection to Park Blvd
Explore modifications/refinements to the Bike Blvd, along Park Blvd to improve
overall bike network
Further refine the traffic circle on Charleston Road to reduce the property impacts
Refine construction impacts to better understand possible mutations needed during
the lengthy construction process.
June 10 Council consideration of key decisions:
Selection of Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing location at Kellogg
Avenue or Seale Avenue for the Partial Underpass Alternative at
Churchill Avenue Crossing to advance into the Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Documentation Phase.
Selection of Preferred Alternative(s) at Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road for advancing grade separation alternatives
into the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental
Documentation Phase.
Future Council Action
Execute Funding Agreement with Federal Railroad
Administration to perform Preliminary Engineering and prepare
Environmental Documentation for the project.
66
May 29, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/1 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
A
Facilitate movement
across the corridor for all
modes of transportation
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open.
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open.
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open. Viaduct provides opportunities for additional
crossings for all modes.
East/West (through) traffic on Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road will be grade separated from the railroad and Alma Street for all modes.
Turning movements from Meadow Drive to southbound
Alma Street will be prohibited. Turning movements from northbound Alma Street will require a U-turn at Alma Village Circle.
All turning movements on Charleston Road to/from Alma Street will be permitted; however, some movements will be
facilitated via a roundabout approximately 600 feet east
of Alma Street, resulting in longer routes for all modes
compared to the Trench, Hybrid, and Viaduct alternatives.
B
Reduce delay and
congestion
for vehicular traffic at rail
crossings
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates.
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates.
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates.
With construction of the grade
separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at
Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Thus,
the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates. Pedestrian and cyclist mode separation will also help reduce intersection congestion.
Some turning movements will be prohibited at the Alma/Meadow intersection and thus would use the Charleston
Road intersection or the new signal at Alma Village
Circle. At the Alma/Charleston intersection, some turning
movements will increase overall delays due to the circuitous nature of the movements, as vehicles would need to use the Charleston roundabout and return to the Alma intersection
to complete the movements (e.g. eastbound left-turns to
Alma, northbound left-turns and southbound right-turns to
Charleston).
C
Provide clear, safe routes
for pedestrians and
cyclists crossing the rail
corridor, separate from
vehicles
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic. Conflicts between pedestrians/cyclists
and motor vehicles will remain at the Alma intersections.
Bike lanes will be added to Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road intersections. Additional pedestrian/cyclist separations routes can be explored in the next phase of design.
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic. Conflicts between pedestrians/cyclists
and motor vehicles will remain at the Alma intersections.
Bike lanes will be added to Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road intersections. Additional pedestrian/cyclist separations routes can be explored in the next phase of design.
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic. Conflicts between pedestrians/cyclists
and motor vehicles will remain at the Alma intersections.
Bike lanes will be added to Meadow Drive and Charleston
Road intersections. Additional pedestrian/cyclist separations routes can be explored in the next phase of design.
Pedestrians and cyclists traveling east/
west will be completely separated from train and vehicular
traffic on Alma Street. Full pedestrian and cyclist movement is maintained.
Pedestrians and cyclists will have more circuitous routes traveling east/west across the corridor because the pedestrian/bike path is located on one side of the street
only: on the south side of Meadow Drive and on the north
side of Charleston Road. For example, cyclists traveling
eastbound on Charleston Road near Ruthelma Street will have to cross Charleston Road to get onto the north side of the road, then cross Charleston Road again at the
roundabout near Mumford Place to get back onto the right/
south side of the road.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation
May 29, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/2 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
D
Support continued rail
operations and Caltrain
service improvements
A temporary railroad track will be required,
and a crossover track located north of the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated. With the pump stations, there will be potential risks to train operations from flooding.
A temporary railroad track will be
required, and a crossover track located north of the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated.
A temporary railroad track will be
required, and a crossover track located north of the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated.
A temporary railroad track is likely to be
required unless an alternate construction methodology and sequencing is acceptable to Caltrain.
E
Finance with feasible
funding sources
(order of magnitude cost)
The trench will require greater levels
of local funding in the form of fees, taxes or special
assessments, the feasibility of which are still being studied in the context of overall citywide infrastructure funding needs.
The hybrid would require lower levels
of local funding, with a substantial portion of capital costs
covered by Regional, State and Federal sources.
The viaduct would require substantial
local funding resources more than the hybrid alternative, but
less than the trench and viaduct alternatives.
The underpass will require substantial
local funding resources more than the hybrid alternative, but
less than the trench and viaduct alternatives.
F
Minimize right-of-way
acquisition (Private
property only)
Subsurface acquisition will be required
for the ground anchors for the trench retaining walls and
private properties will be required for creek diversion pump station.
No acquisition of private properties is
required; however, driveway modifications will be required.
No acquisition of private properties is
required.
Five (5) full private property
acquisitions are required in multiple locations (two at
Meadow Drive and three at Charleston Road). Multiple driveway modifications will be also required.
Partial acquisition of residential properties and removal of
trees will be required at various locations and summarized below:
At Meadow Drive:
• Six (6) front yard acquisitions on both sides of Meadow
between 2nd Street and Park Boulevard.
• One (1) side yard acquisition on the north side of
Meadow, just west of Emerson Street.
• Five (5) backyard acquisitions on the south side of
Meadow between Alma Street and Emerson Street.
At Charleston Road:
• On both sides of Charleston between Ruthelma Avenue and Park Boulevard. Seven (7) front yard acquisitions; two (2) on the north side, five (5) on the south side of
Charleston.
• One (1) side yard acquisition on the south side of Charleston between Park Boulevard and the railroad tracks.
• Eight (8) property acquisitions on both sides of Charleston between Alma St and Wright Place; six (6)
backyard acquisitions on the north side of Charleston,
and two (2) front yard acquisitions on the south side of
Charleston (closest to Alma).
• Eight (8) acquisitions between Wright Place and Mumford
Place; six (6) backyard acquisitions on the north side of
Charleston and two (2) front yard acquisitions on the south side of Charleston.
• Six (6) property acquisitions along Alma Street between
Charleston Road and Ely Place; five (5) backyard acquisitions, and one side yard acquisition (closest to Ely Place).
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation
May 29, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/3 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
G1 Reduce rail noise and
vibration
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains
instead of diesel locomotives will also reduce noise. Trains
operating in trench will reduce noise in neighborhoods.
Acoustically treated trench walls will eliminate acoustical reflections. There would be a slight reduction to vibration levels at nearby receptors.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains
instead of diesel engines will also reduce noise. Six-foot
high parapet sound barriers will help reduce propulsion
and wheel/rail noise. There would be a slight reduction to vibration levels at nearby receptors.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains
instead of diesel engines will also reduce noise. Six-foot
high parapet sound barriers will help reduce propulsion and
wheel/rail noise. There would be significant reduction to vibration levels at nearby receptors.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated by the replacement of the at-grade crossings
with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains rather than
diesel engines will also reduce noise. Modern rail bridge
design will reduce excess structural noise. Sound barriers will also help to reduce propulsion and wheel/rail noise. There would be little to no change to vibration levels at
nearby receptors. An optional 6-foot high noise barrier near
the tracks and on the overpass structure could significantly
reduce wheel/rail and propulsion noise.
G2 Sea Level Rise
Susceptibility
The low point of the track profile
(Elevation 4 feet) for the trench alternative would be close
to the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year 2100 (a sea level rise of 3.42 feet ).
The trench’s track profile is below the estimated
groundwater (approximately between Elevation 20 and 25) for about 4,000 feet along the track.
Increased groundwater elevations from sea level rise
would further expose the trench to emergent groundwater by 2100. A pump station is proposed, but groundwater depletion and additional studies would be needed to further
assess the feasibility of this alternative.
The hybrid alternative would be outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year
2100.
The low point of the proposed roadway for the Hybrid at
Meadow (Elevation 30 feet) is about 9 feet higher than
current groundwater (Elevation 21). The low point of the
proposed roadway for the Hybrid at Charleston (Elevation 34 feet) is about 12 feet higher than current groundwater (Elevation 22 ).
Increased groundwater elevations from sea level rise can damage a roadway from below, increasing the likelihood of cracks, potholes, and sinkholes.
The viaduct structure is not anticipated to be affected by sea level rise or emergent groundwater.The underpass alternative would be
outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year 2100.
The low point of the proposed roadway for the underpass at Meadow (Elevation 12 feet) is about 9 feet below current groundwater (Elevation 21).
The low point of the proposed roadway for the underpass at Charleston (Elevation 16 feet) is about 6 feet below current groundwater (Elevation 22).
Increased groundwater elevations from sea level rise would further expose the underpass alternative to emergent groundwater by 2100.
G3 Heat Island Effect
Construction extents are limited to the existing railroad tracks. Negligible changes to heat island effects due to minimal changes to land use.
The replacement of asphalt pavement
for roadway grading results in some impact to heat island effects, because newer asphalt pavement surfaces have lower albedo ratings that will increase with age.
Lower albedo ratings are less favorable because more light is absorbed, which heats up the surrounding air.
Construction extents are limited to the
existing railroad tracks. Negligible changes to heat island effects due to minimal changes to land use.
As the alternative with the largest
construction extents, the replacement of existing darker concrete with new concrete with higher albedo ratings results in some expected improvement to heat island
effects.
Higher albedo ratings are more favorable because more light is reflected, which can help cool the surrounding air.
G4 Stormwater Treatment
Construction extents are limited to the existing railroad tracks. Significant changes to the amount of stormwater runoff generated from project area expected,
due to changes in land use from existing railroad ballast to
significantly more impervious concrete surfaces.
Changes to land use and additional
impervious areas (i.e., new underpass bridge) are minimal.
Construction extents are limited to the
existing railroad tracks. With the assumption that runoff from the raised viaduct can all be directed to the underlying vegetated areas, no net increase in runoff generation is
expected.
As the alternative with the largest construction extents and changes to land use, especially with the conversion of existing vegetated areas to concrete
and asphalt surfaces, a moderate impact to the amount of
stormwater to be treated is expected.
H
Maintain access to
neighborhoods, parks, and
schools along the corridor,
while reducing regional
traffic on neighborhood
streets
No diversion of regional traffic with
construction of grade separations.
No diversion of regional traffic with
construction of grade separations.
No diversion of regional traffic with
construction of grade separations.
Regional traffic will be diverted due
to the restricted turning movements; however, travel in all directions will be possible, but may require a longer route and take more time. Turning movements at Ely Place will
be limited to right turns on northbound Alma Street only.
Pedestrian and cyclist access will improve due to mode
separation.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation
May 29, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/4 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
L Creek/Drainage Impacts
• Requires diversion of Adobe and Barron creeks resulting in the need for pump stations.
• Numerous regulatory agency approvals required for creek
diversion.
• Pump stations also required to dewater the trench.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump stations.
• Pump stations required for lowered roadways.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump stations.
• No significant creek or drainage impacts.• Pump station required for lowered roadways.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump station.
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
I Minimize visual changes
along the corridor
Railroad tracks will be below grade with high fencing at grade. Landscaping options will be limited
to plants with shallow roots in areas where ground anchors
are required for the trench retaining walls.
Railroad tracks will be approximately 15 feet above grade. Landscaping with trees will be
incorporated for screening where feasible.
During the winter, late afternoon (after 3 pm) shadows are significant on the east side of the structure as they extend
to the west-facing, residential properties on the east side of
Alma Street.
Railroad tracks will be approximately 20 feet above grade. Landscaping with trees will be
incorporated for screening where feasible.
Shadows from the viaduct structure extend about 15 feet from each side of the structure in the mid-morning (9
am) and mid-afternoon (3 pm) hours during the summer
solstice.
During the winter, late afternoon (after 3 pm) shadows are
significant on the east side of the structure as they extend
to the west-facing, residential properties on the east side of Alma Street.
Railroad tracks will remain at-grade. On Charleston Road, removal of the planting strip on both sides
of the road will be required along with the planting strip on
the east side of Alma Street between Charleston Road and
Ely Place.
J Minimize disruption and
duration of construction
Extended road closures at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road are required. Construction would
last for approximately 6 years.
Extended lane reductions at Alma
Street, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road will be required.
Construction would last for approximately 4 years.
Extended lane reductions along
Alma Street are required. Construction would last for
approximately 2.5 to 3 years.
Lane reductions and temporary closures (nights/weekends only) on Alma Street, a closure of Meadow Drive between Emerson Street and Park Boulevard, and a closure of Charleston Road between Alma
Street and Park Boulevard will be required for the majority
of construction. The total duration of construction will
be approximately 3.5 to 4 years; however the durations are subject to change depending on the construction methodologies used.
Order of magnitude cost TBD, likely between $1.5B and $2B*$390M to $480M*$790M to $970M*$690M to $850M*
* Total Preliminary Construction Cost for infrastructure of both railroad crossings in 2024 dollars, and includes escalation to 2031 (Subject to Change).
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation
May 29, 2024 • Meadow-Charleston Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/5 of 5
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Meadow-Charleston Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Trench
Hybrid
Viaduct
Underpass
M Long-Term Maintenance
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Pump stations for creek diversions.
• Pump stations for trench dewatering.
• Below ground railroad alignment.
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Pump stations for roadway drainage.
• Above ground railroad alignment with embankments and
undercrossing structures.
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Above ground railroad alignment with embankments and
viaduct structures.
Increased maintenance cost due to:
• Pump stations for underpass dewatering.
• Above ground structures for both road and rail.
N Utility Relocations • Major utility relocations for lowered railroad.• Moderate amount of utility relocations for utility relocations for lowered roadways.• Some utility relocations required.• Major utility relocation due to the fully lowered roadway.
O Railroad Operations Impacts
during Construction
• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) is required.• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) is required, but a bit
shorter than the trench shoofly.• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) is required.• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) likely required unless an
alternate construction methodology and sequencing is
acceptable to Caltrain.
P Local Street Circulation
Impacts during Construction
• Removal of right turn lanes on Alma Street at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road; however, traffic will still be able to flow as needed despite lane reduction.
• Closes Meadow Drive while Charleston Road roadway bridges are constructed and visa versa.
• Removal of right turn lanes on Alma Street at Meadow
Drive and Charleston Road; however, traffic will still be able to flow as needed despite lane reduction.
• Alma Street, Charleston Road, and Meadow Drive reduced to 2 lanes (one lane each direction).
• Reduced number of lanes on Alma Street.
• Possible night time closures of Meadow Drive and
Charleston Road.
• Lane reduction on Alma Street during construction of the
shoofly and bridge.
• Closure of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road
throughout excavation and construction of the undercrossing and related features.
Q
Caltrain right-of-way Impact
(Probability of approval
by Caltrain of permanent
encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is
unknown at this time).
Permanent encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is required to accommodate pump
station(s).
Permanent encroachment inside Caltrain’s right of way is required to accommodate the
southbound right turn lane from Alma Street.
No permanent encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is required. However, options of a
linear park or dual use under the viaduct would require Caltrain approval.
No permanent encroachment inside
Caltrain’s right-of-way is required.
R Caltrain Design Exceptions
Needed
2% grade on track required. Maximum grade allowed by Caltrain is 1%.Temporary vertical clearance of 12 feet at undercrossing structures during construction.
Minimum vertical clearance allowed by Caltrain is 16.5 feet.
1.4% grade on track required. Maximum grade allowed by Caltrain is 1%.No Caltrain design exceptions required.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
1 of 3May 29, 2024 • Churchill Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/
Churchill Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
A Facilitate movement across the corridor for
all modes of transportation
Churchill Avenue will be closed to vehicles at the railroad tracks. Pedestrians and cyclists will
be grade separated from the railroad in Option 1. For Option 2, pedestrians and cyclists will be grade separated from the railroad and vehicle traffic on Alma Street.
Churchill Avenue will be grade separated from the railroad for all modes and will remain open.
Through traffic on Churchill Avenue is no longer possible, and some traffic will have to take alternate routes. Pedestrian/bike (only) traffic will be grade separated from the railroad and vehicle traffic on Alma Street via an undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue or Seale Avenue.
B Reduce delay and congestion
for vehicular traffic at rail crossings
With closure of Churchill Avenue, traffic will be diverted to Embarcadero and Page Mill
Road and thus, nearby intersections will be impacted; however, operational improvements are proposed at the Embarcadero/Kingsley/Alma intersection, El Camino Real intersections at Embarcadero Road and Page Mill Road and Alma/Oregon Expressway interchange that would mitigate the traffic impacts.
With construction of the grade separation, the railroad crossing gates and warning lights
at Churchill Avenue will be removed. Thus, the traffic will not be interrupted by the railroad crossing gates. Pedestrian undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue or Seale Avenue will also help reduce intersection congestion.
C
Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and
cyclists crossing the rail corridor, separate
from vehicles
Pedestrians/cyclists will be separated from train traffic and vehicles.Pedestrians and cyclists will be completely separated from train and vehicular traffic. Full
pedestrian and cyclist movement is maintained with a new undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue or Seale Avenue.
D Support continued rail operations and Caltrain
service improvements
A temporary railroad track will not be required.A temporary railroad track is likely to be required unless an alternate construction
methodology and sequencing is acceptable to Caltrain.
E Finance with feasible funding sources
(Order of magnitude cost)
The closure would require the lowest levels of local funding, with a substantial portion of
capital costs covered by Regional, State and Federal sources.
The underpasses would require lower levels of local funding, with a substantial portion of
capital costs covered by Regional, State, and Federal sources.
F Minimize right-of-way acquisition
(Private property only)
No acquisition of private properties is required; however, there will be impacts to the Palo Alto
High School property. Loss of street parking and removal of the planter strip on both sides of Churchill Avenue, east of Alma Street, will be required for the pedestrian/bike undercrossing (Option 2 only).
A partial acquisition of the high school and/or residential property fronting Churchill Avenue
on the west side of the tracks in the vicinity of Mariposa Avenue will be required.
Driveway modifications, removal and relocation of planter strips, and fifteen (15) partial acquisitions of residential
properties will be required due to widening of Alma Street between Melville Avenue and Lowell Avenue.
For the pedestrian undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue (or Seale Avenue), loss of street parking and removal of the
planter strip on both sides of the street will be required for approximately 250-300 feet from (east of) Alma Street. The number of properties to be affected are as follows:
• For an undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue, four (4) on the north side and five (5) on the south side of Kellogg Avenue. In addition, a partial acquisition of the high school near the bleachers will be required.
• For an undercrossing at Seale Avenue, four (4) on the north side and four (4) on the south side of Seale Avenue.
G1 Reduce rail noise and vibration
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the removal of the at-grade crossings with roadway closure. Utilizing EMU trains instead of diesel engines will also reduce noise. There would
be no change to vibration levels at nearby receptors. An optional 6-foot high noise barrier near the tracks could
significantly reduce wheel/rail and propulsion noise.
Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated by the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. Utilizing EMU trains rather than diesel engines will also reduce noise and some
road noise would be reduced. Modern rail bridge design will reduce excess structural noise. There would be little
to no change to vibration levels at nearby receptors. An optional 6-foot high noise barrier near the tracks and on
the overpass structure could significantly reduce wheel/rail and propulsion noise.
G2 Sea Level Rise Susceptibility
The closure alternative would be outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year 2100.
The lowest pedestrian underpass elevations (27 feet at Kellogg, and 20 feet at Seale Avenue) would still be well above current groundwater levels (Elevation 8-11 feet).
The underpass alternative would be outside of the projected sea level rise inundation zone for the year 2100.
The lowest elevations (27 feet for the pedestrian underpass at Kellogg, 25 feet for the roadway underpass at Churchill and 20 feet for the pedestrian underpass at Seale Avenue) would still be well above current groundwater
levels (Elevation 8-11 feet).
This alternative is not anticipated to be affected by sea level rise or emergent groundwater.
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
Churchill Evaluation of City Council-Adopted Criteria
Evaluation Criteria
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
G3 Heat Island Effect
The introduction of new vegetated areas, with higher albedo ratings than asphalt surfaces
and increased provision of shading, southwest of the Alma St & Churchill Ave intersection results in an expected improvement to heat island effects.
Higher albedo ratings are more favorable because more light is reflected, which can help cool the surrounding air.
The combination of replacing existing concrete with lighter albedo concrete and replacing
existing asphalt with darker albedo asphalt pavements results in an expected neutral impact to heat island effects.
G4 Stormwater Treatment
The introduction of new vegetated areas, with lower runoff coefficients and higher expected perviousness, southwest of the Alma St & Churchill Ave intersection results in some expected reduction in
stormwater generation.
Due to the large area of regraded (lowered) and replaced impervious surfaces the volume of runoff requiring treatment will increase substantially as compared to existing conditions.
H
Maintain access to neighborhoods, parks,
and schools along the corridor, while reducing
regional traffic on neighborhood streets
Vehicle access will be diverted and resultant regional traffic will be mitigated. Pedestrian and cyclist access will improve to mode separation.Regional traffic will be diverted due to the restricted turning movements. Pedestrian and cyclist access will improve due to mode separation.
I Minimize visual changes along the corridor
Railroad tracks remain at existing grade. Residual roadway areas from the closure provide
opportunities for landscaping at Churchill between Mariposa Avenue and the tracks.
Some tree removals will be required on both sides of Churchill for a length of approximately 250-300 feet east of
Alma Street to accommodate a ped/bike ramp down the center of Churchill (Option 2 only).
The railroad tracks and the northbound lanes of Alma Street will remain at-grade, and the east
side of Churchill Avenue will remain unchanged. Mature trees and overhead power poles within the Alma Street planting strip, from just north of Kellogg Avenue to just south of Coleridge Avenue, will be removed. Landscaping restoration is limited due to space constraints.
J Minimize disruption and duration of
construction
The closure will have minimal road closures (nights/weekends only). Construction would last for approximately 2 years.Closure of Churchill Avenue between Alma Street and Mariposa Avenue will be required for the majority of construction. Alma Street will be one-way northbound for approximately 6+ months. Total duration
of construction will be approximately 2.5 to 3 years; however the durations are subject to change depending on
the construction methodologies used.
Order of magnitude cost $90M to $120M*$260M to $320M*
2 of 3May 29, 2024 • Churchill Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/
Churchill Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
L Creek/Drainage Impacts • Pump station required for lowered pedestrian/bike undercrossing.
• Increased risk of flooding with pump stations.
• Relocation of the pump house at Embarcadero Road required to accommodate widening of Alma Street.
• Pump station required for lowered roadways.
• Increased risk of flooding due to pump station.
M Long-Term Maintenance
Increased maintenance costs due to:
• Pump stations for undercrossing drainage.
Increased maintenance cost due to:
• Pump stations for underpass drainage.
• Above ground structures for both road and rail.
* Total Preliminary Construction Cost for infrastructure of the railroad crossing in 2024 dollars, and includes escalation to 2031 (Subject to Change).
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
Summary of Evaluation
ImprovementImpact
Most Impact
Some Impact
Some Improvement
Moderate Impact
Neutral (No Impact or Improvement)
Moderate Improvement
Most Improvement
The color of the matrix is comparative between each alternative at this location.
3 of 3
Churchill Evaluation of Engineering Challenges
Engineering Challenges
Closure with Mitigations
Partial Underpass
N Utility Relocations • Potential utility relocations in Alma Street and Churchill Avenue for pedestrian/bike undercrossing.
• Minor utility relocations for Embarcadero Road/Alma Street improvements.
• Major utility relocations for lowered roadways.
O Railroad Operations Impacts during
Construction • No temporary track (i.e., shoofly) required, only single tracking during nights and weekends.• Temporary track (i.e., shoofly) likely required unless alternate construction methodology and sequencing is acceptable to Caltrain.
P Local Street Circulation Impacts during
Construction
• Path along Palo Alto High School will temporarily be impacted during construction.
• Temporary night and weekend closure of lanes on Churchill Avenue, Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, El Camino Real, and Oregon Expressway.
• Lane reduction on Alma Street during construction of the shoofly and bridge.
• Likely closure of Churchill Avenue throughout the excavation and construction of the undercrossing and related features.
• Likely closure of Kellogg Avenue for the duration of the pedestrian underpass construction; driveway access from one direction only.
Q
Caltrain right-of-way Impact
(Probability of approval by Caltrain of
permanent encroachment inside Caltrain’s
right-of-way is unknown at this time).
Requires permanent longitudinal encroachment inside Caltrain’s right-of-way for the
pedestrian/bike ramps for undercrossing Option 1.• Requires permanent longitudinal encroachment inside Caltrain’s right-of-way for the pedestrian/bike ramps (to the undercrossing at Kellogg Avenue) and for the lanes/shoulders for southbound Alma Street.
• No longitudinal encroachment inside Caltrain’s right-of-way required for the pedestrian/bike underpass at Seale Avenue.
R Caltrain Design Exceptions Needed None required.No Caltrain design exceptions needed.
May 29, 2024 • Churchill Summary of Evaluation • For more renderings, plans and animations visit: https://connectingpaloalto.com/renderings-plans-and-animations/
Summary of Evaluation